MICHAEL HEARTSMAN V. ERIC ARNOLD, No. 18-16110 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL A. HEARTSMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16110 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-06098-VC v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC ARNOLD, Warden; XAVIER BECERRA, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Michael A. Heartsman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Smith v. Ryan, 823 F.3d 1270, 1278 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Heartsman contends that the trial court committed misconduct by favoring the prosecution and exhibiting bias against the defense. We need not address appellee’s contention that the claim is procedurally defaulted because it fails on the merits. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002). None of the claimed instances of misconduct suggest the trial court harbored “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The state court’s rejection of this claim, therefore, was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 (2000). We treat appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 221(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 18-16110

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.