Burgess
Burgess v. Cook
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Oregon state prisoner, Richard Burgess (“Petitioner”), appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
The certificate of appealability (“COA”) issued by the district court certified the issues of “Due Process Violation” and “Exhaustion/Procedural Default.” Because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) limits the scope of appellate review to those issues specified in the COA, Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.1999), we do not reach the issues raised in Petitioner’s opening brief that fall outside the scope of the COA.
The district court determined that all but two of the Petitioner’s claims were not supported by evidence or coherent argument. We agree. “[Cjonclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.” James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.1994). The district court correctly determined that Petitioner only alleged two of his claims with sufficient specificity to suggest constitutional error. Because all but these two claims did not meet the specificity requirement, we need not…