No. 07-55547.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Page 20
Submitted April 14, 2009.[*]
Filed May 4, 2009.
George I. Johnson, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Deborah J. Chuang, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, George H. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-01809-GHK.
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[**]
George I. Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the presence in the courtroom gallery of a substantial number of uniformed and armed California Highway Patrol officers[1] as voluntary spectators at the trial violated Johnson’s right to a fair trial. However, the state did not ask the officers to be there, nor were they disruptive or ill behaved.[2]
The Supreme Court has instructed us that there is no clearly established Supreme Court law on the subject of nondisruptive “spectator conduct” as opposed to “state-sponsored courtroom practices.” Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 76, 127 S.Ct. 649, 653, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006). Therefore, the decision of the California courts cannot have been “contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”Id. at 77, 127 S.Ct. at 654.
AFFIRMED.
Page 21