Turner

MEMORANDUM **

Deangelo Turner appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm in part, and dismiss in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing. Turner argues that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop additional information to support his claim that the trial court erroneously denied his *509 motion to sever, and that he is actually innocent despite his conviction for intentional murder. Turner did not, however, establish what additional evidence he could develop, why that evidence “could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence,” or how the additional evidence he wishes to develop would have likely affected the outcome of his trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(2)(A)(ii); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 432 , 120 S.Ct. 1479 , 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that petitioners are not entitled to go on fishing expeditions in search of evidence that may or may not support their claims).

Turner’s claim that the Oregon state court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment…