FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM B. GREENE, No. 08-35967
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00040-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERY UTTECHT,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner William B. Greene appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
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).
Greene contends that the trial court committed constitutional error by: (1)
giving a standard jury instruction on insanity rather than an instruction specifically
tailored to his theory that he suffered from dissociative identity disorder; and (2)
giving a voluntary act instruction that conflicted with his diminished capacity
defense. Greene’s claims of instructional error are issues of state law that are not
cognizable on federal habeas review. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099,
1107 (9th Cir. 1992). The state court’s decision rejecting Greene’s contention was
not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 70-72
(1991).
We construe Greene’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F. 3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-35967