Case Name: William B. GREENE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery UTTECHT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-11
Citations: 383 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 08-35967
Parties: William B. GREENE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery UTTECHT, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
William B. GREENE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffery UTTECHT, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-35967.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 11, 2010.
William B. Greene, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.
Paul D. Weisser, Senior Counsel, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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. § 2258, and we affirm.
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, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (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-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.