
    Carlos HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raul LOPEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-15067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2014.
    
    Filed June 24, 2014.
    Stanley Lester Friedman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Michele Swanson, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Carlos Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. The district court rejected Harris’s claim that the presence on his jury of a former schoolteacher with whom he had problems decades before violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury in 2005. We affirm.

In the absence of a showing of cause and prejudice, a federal habeas court will not review a claim rejected by the state court on the basis of an independent and adequate state procedural rule. Walker v. Martin, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1127, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011). Harris cannot demonstrate prejudice because he cannot show that Juror No. 8 was actually or impliedly biased. See United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2000). Actual bias is “bias in fact — the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality.” Id. at 1112 (internal quotation marks omitted). Implied bias exists in “extreme situations where the relationship between a prospective juror and some aspect of the litigation is such that it is highly unlikely that the average person could remain impartial in his deliberations under the circumstances.” Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 527 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court did not err in holding that Harris failed to show that Juror No. 8 was actually or impliedly biased. There was no evidence of either. Indeed, Juror No. 8 told Harris’s investigator that although she recalled performing jury duty in 2005, she had no recollection of Harris from the trial or from school.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     