DE ANDRE SCOTT V. MIKE MCDONALD, No. 14-16653 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 2 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DE ANDRE CERRONE SCOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-16653 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02492-WBS MEMORANDUM* MIKE McDONALD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California State prisoner De Andre Cerrone Scott appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 2008 convictions for murder and robbery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). corpus petition, see Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm. Scott contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury when three jurors allegedly formed an opinion of guilt outside the presence of the jury room and away from the remaining members of the jury. The state court’s determination that the juror’s conversation did not infect the deliberations with any sort of prejudice or bias was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101-02 (2011). Moreover, Scott has failed to present any evidence that would overcome the presumption that the state court’s credibility findings are correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). We treat Scott’s briefing of additional issues as a request to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the request is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 221(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 14-16653

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.