Rouse

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Ronald Rouse appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. He contends that he was forced by the trial judge to choose between being represented by an attorney with whom he had an irreconcilable conflict or being represented by no attorney at all, and that he was thereby denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We disagree that Rouse was faced with such a choice, and therefore affirm.

“[0]ur only concern when reviewing the constitutionality of a state-court conviction is whether the petitioner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’ ” Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a)). Rouse alleges that the court’s initial refusal to provide him with substitute counsel violated his constitutional rights because his conflict with his attorney “had become so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication!)]” Id. at 1026 . However, “not every conflict or disagreement between the defendant and counsel implicates Sixth Amendment rights!)]” id. at 1027 , and the Supreme Court has made clear that the Sixth Amendment does not…