Douglas

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Erie Todd Douglas appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

Douglas contends that the district court erroneously forced him to abandon his unexhausted claims and failed to advise him of the option of staying his exhausted *688 claims while he returned to state court to exhaust, in light of Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir.2003).

We disagree. A federal district court need not explain habeas procedure to a litigant. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 , 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2445-46 , 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (holding that a district court is not required to give a pro se litigant warnings about stay-and-abeyance procedure).

AFFIRMED. 1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. Douglas seeks to expand the certificate of appealability ("COA”) to encompass three more issues. We decline to expand the COA because Douglas fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).