Townsend

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Kenneth Townsend appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

Townsend first contends that the state trial court violated his constitutional rights when it refused to instruct the jury on the use of excessive force by a police officer. We are unpersuaded. Although the trial court did not provide the specific instruction Townsend requested, it did provide the jury with numerous instructions regarding what is and is not permissible by a police officer in effectuating an arrest. Townsend has not demonstrated that the failure to provide the jury with his requested instruction had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining *974 the jury’s verdict.” See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

Townsend’s second contention, that he was denied due process when the trial court refused to…