
    Theodore Roosevelt FIELDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart J. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-55458.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 10, 2010.
    Theodore Roosevelt Fields, Blythe, CA, pro se.
    Jerry Sies, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Elizabeth Ann Hartwig, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Theodore Roosevelt Fields appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Fields contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court admitted identification evidence that was unduly suggestive. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved 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 Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106, 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). Moreover, because the evidence was cumulative to Fields’ admission that he was the man in the video, it did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

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