What is the standard of review for a writ of mandate under AEDPA?

state court unless the prisoner describes in the state court proceedings both the operative facts and federal legal theory on which his claim is based. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 370 (1995). After reviewing the petition for writ of mandate, the undersigned agrees with respondent that petitioner did not describe the operative facts on which his claims were based. For this reason, the claims raised in claim one are also not exhausted.

Respondent goes on to argue that even if the claims raised in claim one are not exhausted, they should be denied on the merits. After reviewing the record, the undersigned agrees with respondent that the claims raised in claim one are without merit and should be denied. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a)(2) (a habeas petition may be denied on the merits notwithstanding the petitioner's failure to exhaust state court remedies.) In this circumstance, the undersigned reviews the unexhausted claims de novo, rather than under AEDPA's deferential standard of review. See,e.g., Lewis v. Mayle, 391 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2004).