Pliler

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Teddy S. Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition de novo. Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2005). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a writ of habeas corpus may be granted only if the state court’s decision (1) “was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). ‘We review the district court’s denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.” See Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir.2004), cert. dismissed, -U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (Sept. 29, 2005).

First, Williams raises a procedural due process claim, based on the trial court’s failure to conduct, sua sponte, a hearing regarding Williams’ mental competence.

Due process requires that a trial court conduct a hearing on…