Case Name: George Berry STRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-23
Citations: 265 F. App'x 489
Docket Number: No. 06-55956
Parties: George Berry STRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 489–490

Head Matter:
George Berry STRONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-55956.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 11, 2008.
Filed Jan. 23, 2008.
Gretchen Fusilier, Esq., Carlsbad, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kevin R. Vienna, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SANDOVAL , District Judge.
The Honorable Brian E. Sandoval, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner George Berry Strong appeals from the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm. Because the facts are familial- to the parties, we do not recite them here.
Strong's certified claim based on the voluntariness of his plea is proeedurally barred. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (The federal court "will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment."). On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal denied his claim because he failed to comply with California Penal Code § 1287.5, an independent and adequate state procedural ground. See People v. Mendez, 19 Cal.4th 1084, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 969 P.2d 146 (1999). Strong has not shown cause and prejudice to overcome this bar. Poland v. Stewart, 169 F.3d 573, 587 (9th Cir.1999)
We also deny the motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability (COA) to include a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e) (construing the inclusion of an uncertified issue in the opening brief as a motion to expand the COA). Strong has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," as required for a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.