Louis Jesus Comaduran v. KEN CLARK, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LOUIS JESUS COMADURAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KEN CLARK, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-56127
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00869-BTM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Louis Jesus Comaduran appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
OCT 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the***
state court violated Comaduran’s right to due process by failing to sever the
charges related to the home invasion robbery from charges related to the
subsequent high-speed chase. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).
10-56127 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.***
Comaduran contends that the California trial court violated his right to due
process when it joined charges arising from three 2005 incidents. Contrary to
Comaduran’s contention, the California appellate court’s rejection of this claim
was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law, nor based
on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Collins v.
Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2010).
We construe appellant’s Sixth Amendment 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that an
evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. See United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963
F.2d 1184, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 1992).
Having resolved all issues related to this appeal, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --