Ashmindar Singh v. William Knipp
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Ashmindar Jeet Singh appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant or deny a habeas petition, Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
Singh’s habeas petition — which is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)— cannot be granted unless the state court’s adjudication of the merits was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).
Singh contends the joinder of his trial with the trial of four co-defendants deprived him of due process of law and a fair trial. The California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim did not contradict or unreasonably apply binding United States Supreme Court precedent; under AEDPA, the Supreme Court has not “clearly established” that misjoinder can amount to a constitutional violation. See Collins, 603 F.3d at 1132 .