Rickey Byron Churchill v. Midge Carroll, Warden, John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General for the State of California

943 F.2d 55 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Rickey Byron CHURCHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Midge CARROLL, Warden, John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General for the State of California, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-56107. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 5, 1991. * Decided Sept. 10, 1991. Before CANBY, DAVID R. THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Rickey Byron Churchill, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm. 3 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,…