Hill

MEMORANDUM *

Donald Hill appeals from the district court’s denial of his writ of habeas corpus. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties, and are restated herein only as necessary.

We may grant a writ only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 , 123 S.Ct. 357 , 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002). Here, *455 the California appellate court concluded that the failure to introduce Dr. Maloney’s report was not prejudicial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

We cannot conclude that its decision was an unreasonable application of federal law. Dr. Maloney’s report was largely cumulative of the evidence already before the court. The court had Jay Goldstein’s report, Wilton Jones’s letter, and the Supplemental Probation Officer’s Report, all of which detail Hill’s problems with drug addiction. Moreover, Dr. Maloney failed to find that Hill had any mental deficiencies. Under these facts, it was not unreasonable for the…