Roy Russ v. Brandon Price

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROY RUSS, No. 22-17003 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01592-HBK v. MEMORANDUM* BRANDON PRICE, Executive Director, Coalinga State Hospital, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted June 18, 2025*** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Roy Russ appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Russ’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no non-frivolous arguments for appeal. Russ has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no basis for relief on the issue certified for appeal. See Graves v. McEwen, 731 F.3d 876, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2013). The state court’s rejection of Russ’s equal protection claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Taylor v. San Diego Cnty., 800 F.3d 1164, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2015). We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to cover the uncertified issues identified in Russ’s pro se brief and the counseled Anders brief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 22-17003