Coleman

MEMORANDUM ***

Michael Coleman (“Coleman”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We review the district court’s decision de novo, Beardslee v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 560, 568 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Coleman raises a single issue in his habeas petition: whether he was denied adequate access to the appellate process by the California Court of Appeal. In his direct appeal before that court, he challenged a trial court ruling that denied him discovery of the files of the District Attorney’s Victim-Witness Advocate. The appellate court endeavored to obtain the file from the trial court, but learned that it had not been made part of the record. Though it was unable to review the file and determine for itself whether the file contained discoverable material, the appellate court denied Coleman’s discovery claim. Coleman sought rehearing, raising for the first time his argument that his right to appeal had been infringed because the court did not have before it “a record of sufficient completeness for adequate consideration of the errors assigned.” Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 497 , 83 S.Ct. 774 , 9…