Schriro

MEMORANDUM ***

Kurt B. Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

(1) Williams contends that the prosecutor’s plea bargaining position — including a plea offer acceptance deadline— and ancillary actions violated his constitutional rights and deprived him of effective assistance of counsel as a matter of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-76 , *254 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 , 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 754 (9th Cir.2009). We disagree. In the first place, no clearly established Supreme Court law indicates that Williams has a general constitutional right to discovery, 1 or to a plea bargain, 2 or that a prosecutor is required to facilitate his consideration of the prosecution’s plea bargaining positions or offers, 3 or that a prosecutor cannot take a harsh or unpleasant position, including revocation of the plea offer. 4 Beyond that, the record shows that the…