Paul Anthony Rupe v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden

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NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Paul Anthony RUPE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-16041. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 9, 1996. * Decided Jan. 17, 1996. Before: SNEED, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California prisoner Paul Anthony Rupe appeals pro se the district court's denial of his second habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Rupe claims that his counsel was ineffective during his first habeas proceedings, that Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S.Ct. 1710 (1993) requires reevaluation of claims decided in his first habeas petition, and that the district court violated Rupe's due process rights by not staying further habeas proceedings pending appeal of his first petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 2253. We review de novo, Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 In his…