MEMORANDUM *

Moisés Hernandez appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253.

The district court did not err in denying the petition. The California Court of Appeal adjudicated Hernandez’s federal constitutional claim on the merits. Its decision was not contrary to, or an unrea *707 sonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Neither Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 100 S.Ct. 2227, 65 L.Ed.2d 175 (1980), nor any other Supreme Court decision clearly establishes that Hernandez has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the state law instruction that the jury deliberate anew after an alternate juror is seated during deliberations. Though CahPenal Code § 1089 requires such an instruction as a matter of state law, the federal Due Process Clause “safeguards not the meticulous observance of state procedural prescriptions, but the fundamental elements of fairness in a criminal trial.” Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148, 158, 129 S.Ct. 1446, 173 L.Ed.2d 320 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). AFFIRMED.