Melvin Sloan v. Charles D. Marshall

995 F.2d 233 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Melvin SLOAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-56264. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 27, 1993. * Decided May 27, 1993. Before: BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Melvin Sloan, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Sloan contends that his state appeal was excessively delayed in violation of his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1991), and affirm. 3 Excessive delay in the appellate process may give rise to a due process claim. Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1990). This court considers the following four factors in determining whether or not the delay has been excessive enough to constitute a due process violation:…