David Raymond Durham v. Carl Zenon State of Oregon

988 F.2d 118 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David Raymond DURHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carl ZENON; State of Oregon, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-35435. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 22, 1993. * Decided March 5, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; No. CV-91-793-MFM, Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding. D.Or. AFFIRMED. Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Raymond Durham, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Durham contends that the district court erred by dismissing the petition as an abuse of the writ. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Campbell v. Blodgett, No. 92-35360, slip op. 14759, 14765 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 1992), and affirm. 3 "[A] subsequent habeas petition which raises new grounds need not be…