930 F. 2d 28 - Moody v. Martinez
930 F2d 28 Moody v. Martinez
930 F.2d 28
Unpublished Disposition
Minor MOODY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joe MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Advertisement
No. 89-15492.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 1990.*
Decided March 21, 1991.
Before POOLE, CANBY and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges
MEMORANDUM**
Petitioner, Minor Moody (Moody) appeals pro se from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 for failure to exhaust state remedies. The decision whether to grant or deny a petition for habeas corpus is reviewed de novo, United States v. Popoola, 881 F.2d (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.
Exhaustion of all available state remedies as to every claim made within the habeas petition is a prerequisite before a federal court will entertain the petition. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982).
Moody alleges four grounds in support of his request for habeas corpus relief. Those grounds are that he was forced to represent himself, that false evidence was presented to the jury, that he suffered a Miranda rights violation, and that the court should have given further jury instructions. However, Moody admits that none of these claims have been presented to the state's highest court to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of available state remedies. Petition, at 5-6. Thus, he has not exhausted all of his state remedies, and the district court did not err in dismissing his habeas petition.
Advertisement
AFFIRMED.
In a supplemental pleading filed in this court on December 19, 1990, Moody appears to move for oral argument. However, the motion is denied because the panel unanimously finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3