
    DeShawn Dundre BROADNAX, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-56134.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 16, 2014.
    DeShawn Dundre Broadnax, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Vincent P. Lapietra, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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

California state prisoner Deshawn Dun-dre Broadnax 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 corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Broadnax contends that the trial court erred in refusing to order a new trial in light of new evidence that he could have used to impeach a state’s witness, who was charged as Broadnax’s codefendant. Broadnax’s allegation that the trial court misapplied California’s rules for new trials does not state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

We construe Broadnax’s additional arguments, including his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1968), as a motion to expand the certifí-cate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

Broadnax’s motion to stay and abey these proceedings to permit him to exhaust previously unavailable claims in state court is denied.

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