Schwartz

MEMORANDUM *

The federal district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner Dyke Nelson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims without an evidentiary hearing or an opportunity to seek discovery. See Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir.2004) (evidentiary hearing); Anderson v. Calderon, 232 F.3d 1053, 1099 (9th Cir.2000)(discovery). Unlike Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir.2000), where we remanded for an evidentiary hearing where no court had ever considered the substance of the petitioner’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel (Marsden motion), People v. Mars-den, 2 Cal.3d 118 , 84 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 (1970), here the California trial court did consider Nelson’s Marsden motion.

Nelson failed to produce in the district court the transcript of the first of his two hearings regarding substitute counsel in the State Superior Court. Though the court had sealed the transcript so that the prosecutor would not have access to whatever the disagreement might be between Nelson and his lawyer, no reason is shown *593 why Nelson could not obtain the transcript or other account by motion in the Superior Court or otherwise show what transpired. The transcript…