William B. Greene v. Jeffery Uttecht

08-35967Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit11 juin 2010

Texte intégral

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM B. GREENE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEFFERY UTTECHT,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-35967
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00040-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner William B. Greene appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-35967 2
Greene contends that the trial court committed constitutional error by: (1)
giving a standard jury instruction on insanity rather than an instruction specifically
tailored to his theory that he suffered from dissociative identity disorder; and (2)
giving a voluntary act instruction that conflicted with his diminished capacity
defense. Greene’s claims of instructional error are issues of state law that are not
cognizable on federal habeas review. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099,
1107 (9th Cir. 1992). The state court’s decision rejecting Greene’s contention was
not contrary to, and did not involve 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 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 70-72
(1991).
We construe Greene’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 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.