¶2 Washington state prisoner Billy D. Fowler appeals 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.
¶3 Fowler contends that his due process rights were violated when the police failed to preserve a surveillance video containing *886 potentially exculpatory evidence. Because Fowler has failed to show bad faith on the part of the police, the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988).
¶4 We construe Fowler’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
¶5 AFFIRMED.