In a significant new decision, an EDCA district judge adopted in full, Steele v Ayers, CV-S 03-143-GEB KJM, Order, 11-10-10, the magistrate court's 35-page, "Order and Findings and Recommendations" that found, among other things, California's contemporaneous objection rule to be an "inadequate" procedural default to bar review of federal habeas claims. Mag. Judge Order, 7-14-10, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70731, 2010 WL 2793644. This appears to be the first decision to hold that the contemporaneous objection rule has been too inconsistently applied in California to prevent federal habeas review. The F&Rs include a thoughtful discussion of when it is proper to go back to re-examine a rule that had previously been assumed to be "adequate."
For habeas wonks, the Steele opinion is also worth reading on a number of other points, including the court's ruling that various allegations of Teague non-retroactivity be stricken from Respondent's Answer for failing to comply with the Ninth Circuit's Teague pleading requirements set forth in Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d 778, 781-82 (9th Cir. 2004).