Billy D. Fowler v. Maggie Miller-Stout

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BILLY D. FOWLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-35488
D.C. No. CV-06-05620-FDB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Billy D. Fowler appeals 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
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SZ/Research 07-35488 2
Fowler contends that his due process rights were violated when the police
failed to preserve a surveillance video containing potentially exculpatory evidence.
Because Fowler has failed to show bad faith on the part of the police, the state
court’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); see also Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988).
We construe Fowler’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is 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 --