James Michael Morgan v. James Thomas

968 F.2d 1221 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. James Michael MORGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-15038. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 8, 1992. * Decided July 13, 1992. Before POOLE, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 James Michael Morgan, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas 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 (b), (c); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam); Lindquist v. Gardner, 770 F.2d 876, 877 (9th Cir.1985). 4 Morgan concedes that he has a direct appeal pending in the…