Shellmon

MEMORANDUM

Steven Shellmon, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the district court erred in dismissing the petition, rather than holding it in abeyance pending exhaustion of his state remedies, because a new petition may be barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations. The state claims the district court erred in not denying the petition with prejudice because the court decided the only claim it contained against Shellmon on the merits. The provisions of the AEDPA apply.

We earlier agreed with the state. Shellmon v. Cambra, No. 99-16886, 2000 WL 564020 (9th Cir. May 9, 2000). This appeal is now before us again after remand from the United States Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 120 S.Ct. 1595 , 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

We now similarly conclude that the district court did not err under Slack in dismissing the petition rather than holding it in abeyance pending exhaustion of other claims in state court. The petition before the district court in this case, unlike in Slack , contained no unexhausted claims. The district court did not…