William Martin Pavloff v. William A. Merkle Dan Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California

8 F.3d 29 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. William Martin PAVLOFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William A. MERKLE; Dan Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-15806. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 20, 1993. * Decided Sept. 29, 1993. Before: FLETCHER, POOLE, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 William Martin Pavloff, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court determined that Pavloff had not exhausted available state remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we review de novo. Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir.1991). 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…