Michael James Morrow v. Joe M. Martinez Grant Woods, Attorney General

69 F.3d 544 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Michael James MORROW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe M. MARTINEZ; Grant Woods, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-16883. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 24, 1995. * Decided Nov. 1, 1995. Before: BEEZER, THOMPSON, AND T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Michael James Morrow, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Morrow contends that the district court erred by finding that he failed to exhaust his state remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 , and affirm. 3 We review the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Roettgen v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir.1994); James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 333 (1994). A state prisoner must exhaust state remedies before a federal court may grant…