Bradley Scott Proulx v. P. D. Brazelton

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRADLEY SCOTT PROULX,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
P. D. BRAZELTON,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-17484
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00350-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Bradley Scott Proulx appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a habeas
FILED
JUL 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir. 2011), and
we affirm.
Proulx argues that the state trial court violated his right to self-representation
under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). In light of Proulx’s repeated
requests for substitute counsel, the state court’s conclusion that Proulx’s request to
represent himself was equivocal was not contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, Faretta, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.
13-17484 2

-- 2 of 2 --