Unpublished Disposition, 936 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Alfred Banks appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. We affirm.

A state prisoner must exhaust all available state court remedies either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam); Lindquist v. Gardner, 770 F.2d 876, 877 (9th Cir. 1985). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting all claims to the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider the claims. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971).

Banks, who was convicted in Municipal Court of a misdemeanor count of willfully and unlawfully using force or violence on another person, acknowledges that he has presented his claims only to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court. Because he has not exhausted his state remedies, the district court properly dismissed the petition and denied Banks's 60(b) motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.