Lemelle

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Michael S. Lemelle (“Lemelle”) appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, arguing that the state trial court’s denial of both his motion to substitute counsel and his attorney’s subsequent motion to *593 withdraw violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 and affirm.

Although the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to counsel who “function[s] in the active role of an advocate,” Entsminger v. Iowa, 886 U.S. 748 , 751, 87 S.Ct. 1402 , 18 L.Ed.2d 501 (1967), it does not encompass the right to a “meaningful attorney-client relationship,” Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983). “[N]ot every conflict or disagreement between the defendant and counsel implicates Sixth Amendment rights.” See Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1027 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). The Sixth Amendment is violated only where the conflict between counsel and client “was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense.” Id. at 1024-25 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Not every difference over trial strategy creates an…