Pittman

MEMORANDUM *

Michael E. Pittman, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. *717 § 2254 . Pittman’s habeas petition alleged that his federal constitutional right to due process was violated by the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny the habeas petition, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

I

Pittman argues that his right to due process was violated because the prosecutor during final argument improperly commented on Pittman’s decision not to testify. Prosecutorial comments on a defendant’s silence violate the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976).

The prosecutor skated close to the constitutional line in commenting that there were only two witnesses (i.e., the victim and the defendant) and that the victim had…