Ryland Schuster v. Randy Blades
This text of 357 F. App'x 21 (Ryland Schuster v. Randy Blades) 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 *
Schuster failed to properly exhaust his claims before the Idaho state courts. See Lindquist v. Gardner, 770 F.2d 876, 877 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that to exhaust claims, “[a] petitioner must present his claim to the state courts on direct appeal, or through collateral proceedings”). Thus, his claims are procedurally defaulted. See Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4902 (establishing a one year statute of limitations on post-conviction actions brought under the Idaho Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act). Nor has Schuster presented sufficient evidence that either his attorney or the Idaho Supreme Court caused his default. Accordingly, the procedural defaults are not excused, and the district court did not err in dismissing Schuster’s claims with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th 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
357 F. App'x 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryland-schuster-v-randy-blades-ca9-2009.