22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T42c,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Phillip Rosen-blum appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Rosenblum contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a stay and abeyance. The district court did not abuse its discretion, see Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 656 (9th Cir.2005), because its finding that Rosenblum failed to demonstrate “good cause” to excuse his failure to exhaust was consistent with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 , 125 S.Ct. 1528 , 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), and Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (9th Cir.2008). Rosenblum’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is DENIED. Because Rosenblum is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings. Accordingly, we do not consider the pro se filing received on June 10, 2009. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T45e,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Phillip Rosen-blum appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Rosenblum contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a stay and abeyance. The district court did not abuse its discretion, see Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 656 (9th Cir.2005), because its finding that Rosenblum failed to demonstrate “good cause” to excuse his failure to exhaust was consistent with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 , 125 S.Ct. 1528 , 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), and Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (9th Cir.2008).

Rosenblum’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is DENIED. Because Rosenblum is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings. Accordingly, we do not consider the pro se filing received on June 10, 2009.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.