Dustin

MEMORANDUM *

We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal from the district court’s denial of Dustin’s habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , a district court’s denial of a state prisoner’s habeas petition. Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 942 , 123 S.Ct. 341 , 154 L.Ed.2d 249 (2002). *543 We presume the state court’s factual determinations are correct unless the petitioner rebuts this presumption with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1) (2000); Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.2001).

Because the state court’s decision did not result “in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” we deny Dustin’s petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 , 123 S.Ct. 362, 364 , 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam).

The state appellate court determined that the jailhouse interviews by the two psychiatrists and the psychologist were conducted in response to Dustin’s suicide threats and not to…