Edward E. Allen v. State of Oregon

977 F.2d 587 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Edward E. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-35351. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 22, 1992. * Decided Sept. 29, 1992. Before GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Edward E. Allen, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 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 before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam). The petitioner has the burden of alleging exhaustion. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1023 (1982). A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting…