Theodore Roosevelt Fields v. Stuart J. Ryan

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).
SZ/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEODORE ROOSEVELT FIELDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STUART J. RYAN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 06-55458
D.C. No. CV-04-01276-DDP
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Theodore Roosevelt Fields 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 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SZ/Research 06-55458 2
Fields contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court
admitted identification evidence that was unduly suggestive. The California Court
of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Manson
v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106, 114 (1977). Moreover, because the evidence was
cumulative to Fields’ admission that he was the man in the video, it did not have a
“substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”
See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --