Purtle

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Timothy L. Purtle appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Purtle contends that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was *170 violated because one juror was acquainted with a prosecution witness. Because the California Court of Appeal’s decision, that Purtle failed to demonstrate juror bias after a full and fair hearing in state trial court, is not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” this contention fails. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982) (stating that “the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias”). Furthermore, Purtle’s contention that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in district court on this issue is without merit. See Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.1998) (stating that “an evidentiary hearing is not required on issues that can be resolved by reference…