gno.law

Deshawn Broadnax v. Jeffrey Beard

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-56134 · 2014-12-16 · Unpublished

DeShawn Dundre BROADNAX, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee

Area
other
Panel
William T. Wallace (author), Jay S. Bybee, Edward Leavy

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DESHAWN DUNDRE BROADNAX, No. 13-56134 Petitioner, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00560-GPC v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2014** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Deshawn Dundre Broadnax appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a habeas * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Broadnax contends that the trial court erred in refusing to order a new trial in light of new evidence that he could have used to impeach a state’s witness, who was charged as Broadnax’s codefendant. Broadnax’s allegation that the trial court misapplied California’s rules for new trials does not state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).

We construe Broadnax’s additional arguments, including his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

Broadnax’s motion to stay and abey these proceedings to permit him to exhaust previously unavailable claims in state court is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-56134

Cited by