James E. Dailey v. Michael Martel

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).
SMS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES E. DAILEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MARTEL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55791
D.C. No. CV-05-01504-JTM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted: February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner James E. Dailey appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SMS/Research 07-55791 2
Dailey contends the trial court violated his right to present a defense and to
closing arguments by precluding him from introducing third-party culpability
evidence. The state court’s rejection of these claims was neither contrary to, nor an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Dailey fails to show
the proffered evidence was admissible under People v. Hall, 41 Cal. 3d 826 (1986).
Therefore, its exclusion did not violate his constitutional right to present a defense
under Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986), nor his right to closing
arguments under Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 857-63 (1975).
Dailey also raises a number of uncertified claims. Dailey has not “made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” regarding these claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Doe v. Woodford, 508 F.3d 563, 567 (9th Cir. 2007).
His motion to expand the certificate of appealability to include these claims is
therefore denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098,
1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --