Ronald Baskett v. Ronald Van Boening

MEMORANDUM

Ronald Baskett appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

The district court granted Baskett a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) for its finding that six of the nine claims contained in Baskett’s habeas petition were not exhausted. We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of exhaustion de novo. Peterson v. Lumpert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1155 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

Construing the claims raised in Bask-ett’s pro se petition broadly, see Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (9th Cir.2008), we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Baskett’s first claim was not exhausted. The claim, which raised a due process challenge to the revocation of Baskett’s Special Sexual Offender Sentencing Alternative sentence, was presented to the Washington Supreme Court on direct appeal.

Although Baskett’s first claim was exhausted, it was also indistinguishable from his second claim, which the district court rightfully rejected on the merits. Baskett was given the opportunity to confront the evidence against him at his revocation hearing and…