Ashby v. Payne
This text of 155 F. App'x 366 (Ashby v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael E. Ashby appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Ashby contends that the district court erred by dismissing his 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition without prejudice based on its belief that the petition contained only unexhausted claims. We agree with Ashby that his petition contained claims that were exhausted. See In Re Matteson, 142 Wash.2d 298 (Wash. 2000). However, we affirm the dismissal because Ashby’s claims are foreclosed by out decision in White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004).
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [367]*367courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
155 F. App'x 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashby-v-payne-ca9-2005.