¶2 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.
¶3 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 *835 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
¶4 AFFIRMED.