Arceo

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Anthony A. Arceo appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for kidnaping and related sex offenses. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We conduct an independent review of the record and relevant federal law when there is no reasoned state court opinion addressing a petitioner’s federal claims. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2000). Reviewing de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.

Areeo first contends his constitutional rights were violated by judicial misconduct because the trial court (1) faded to sua sponte declare a mistrial, or admonish the jury after a prosecution witness attacked Areeo in the courtroom; and (2) instructed the jury not to feel pity for the defendant as a result of the altercation. Areeo also alleges that his due process rights were violated by prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor presented a case without evidence, and orchestrated the attack on Areeo by the prosecutor’s witness. These contentions lack merit.

Because Areeo fails to allege any facts arising to the level of…