Jimmy Lee Cline, Petitioner-appellant, v. Charlis Marshall, Respondent-appellee, 89 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: BROWNING, REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
California state prisoner Jimmie Lee Cline appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, challenging his conviction for murder, kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon.
Generally, a state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies before he can raise a federal claim in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982). Cline conceded in his federal habeas petition that he failed to raise three of his four claims in a state proceeding, because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel, which constitutes his fourth claim. Cline also failed to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel before a state court. Because Cline has not attempted to present any of the issues raised in his federal habeas petition in a state appeal or petition, and there is no indication that Cline is unable to do so, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing without prejudice his federal habeas petition.1 Id.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Because we affirm the denial of Cline's petition under the former version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we do not consider whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to this appeal
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
