Poland v. Clark

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 07-56702 · 2010-03-26 · Unpublished

Michael Howard POLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CLARK, Respondent-Appellee

Area: other
Panel: Mary M. Schroeder (author), Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Harry Pregerson

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL HOWARD POLAND, No. 07-56702 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-01368-MLH v. MEMORANDUM * CLARK, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2010 ** Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael Howard Poland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

* 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).

NC/Research Poland contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by denying his motion for a mistrial because the jury committed misconduct by considering, during deliberations, a transcript that was not admitted into evidence.

The record reflects that the California state court’s rejection of this claim did not result in a decision that was “contrary to, or involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d); see also Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 949-53 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

NC/Research 2 07-56702