Lamarque

MEMORANDUM **

Rudy James Murphy, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Murphy challenged his state court conviction on the ground that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a verdict free from coercion when it dismissed a juror for refusing to deliberate. We AFFIRM. 1

I

We review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Sanders v. Lamarque, 357 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir.2004). Because Murphy’s petition for habeas relief was filed after April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) governs Murphy’s claim. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th Cir.2004).

II

Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant the writ if the state court proceeding “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” § 2254(d)(1). “Under the ‘unreasonable application’ clause, a federal court should grant the writ when the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is ‘objectively…