Thomas E. Spychala v. Gail Lewis James Gomez, Director

76 F.3d 388 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Thomas E. SPYCHALA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS; James Gomez, Director, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-16400. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 23, 1996. * Decided Jan. 25, 1996. Before: ALARCON, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Thomas E. Spychala, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir.1994), and affirm. 3 A state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies before a federal court may consider the merits of his habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) (1988); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 516 (1982). The district court must dismiss "mixed petitions," which contain both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Lundy,…