Deshawn Broadnax v. Jeffrey Beard

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Deshawn Dun-dre Broadnax appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the denial of a habeas corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Broadnax contends that the trial court erred in refusing to order a new trial in light of new evidence that he could have used to impeach a state’s witness, who was charged as Broadnax’s codefendant. Broadnax’s allegation that the trial court misapplied California’s rules for new trials does not state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

We construe Broadnax’s additional arguments, including his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1968), as a motion to expand the certifí-cate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per…