Jerry Dempsey McIntyre v. Sherman Hatcher

Good Law
62 F.3d 1424·1995 WL 468195·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 29342
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 8, 199595-15098California590 words

Opinion

Opinion

62 F.3d 1424 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jerry Dempsey McINTYRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sherman HATCHER, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-15098. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 2, 1995. * Decided Aug. 8, 1995. Before: ALARCON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Nevada state prisoner, Jerry Dempsy McIntyre, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. McIntyre contends that the exhaustion requirement should be excused based upon unreasonable delay by the Nevada Supreme Court in the processing of his appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 , and affirm. 3 We review the dismissal of the petition de novo, see Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994), but apply the clearly erroneous standard to any findings of fact, see Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Generally, a state…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.