HEARTSMAN v. ARNOLD (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael A. Heartsman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Smith v. Ryan, 823 F.3d 1270, 1278 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.

Heartsman contends that the trial court committed misconduct by favoring the prosecution and exhibiting bias against the defense. We need not address appellee’s contention that the claim is procedurally defaulted because it fails on the merits. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002). None of the claimed instances of misconduct suggest the trial court harbored “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). The state court’s rejection of this claim, therefore, was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

We treat appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.