Rubish v. Lungren

24 F.3d 249 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Robert R. RUBISH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California; James H. Gomez, Director of the DCD; Robert G. Borg, Warden of Folsom Prison, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-15616. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 14, 1994. * Decided April 21, 1994. Before: GOODWIN, NORRIS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Robert Rubish has filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 attacking his 1989 state conviction for second degree murder. The district court dismissed Rubish's petition. Although Rubish alleged four constitutional claims in his habeas petition, he raises only two on appeal. We affirm. 3 * Rubish asserts that the trial court committed federal constitutional error by failing to establish the factual basis for his guilty plea. "[T]he due process clause does not impose on a state court the duty to establish a factual…