Larry D. Taylor v. Bill J. Bunnell, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

976 F.2d 738 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Larry D. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bill J. BUNNELL, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-55136. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 15, 1992. * Decided Sept. 22, 1992. Before GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Larry D. Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the denial de novo. Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989). We reverse and remand for the district court to consider Taylor's petition on the merits. 3 Taylor's only contention is that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas petition without prejudice for failing to exhaust state remedies. An application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state…