Fred Bernard Dale v. Attorney General of the State of California

19 F.3d 1439 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Fred Bernard DALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 91-56055. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 22, 1994. * Decided March 1, 1994. Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Fred B. Dale, a California state parolee, 1 appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition. He contends that the district court erred by denying his petition, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . We accept the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous, Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 832 (1990), review the district court's conclusions of law de novo, id., and reverse. 3 Dale's pro se petition for review in the California Supreme Court on direct appeal included the same allegation…