Craig Paul Calder v. Bryn Armstrong Beatrice Franklin, Thomas Chickory Thomas P. Wright Richard E. Wyett Nykki Kinsley and Frank Payne

79 F.3d 1152 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Craig Paul CALDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryn ARMSTRONG; Beatrice Franklin, Thomas Chickory; Thomas P. Wright; Richard E. Wyett; Nykki Kinsley and Frank Payne, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-17233. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 12, 1996. * Decided March 18, 1996. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Craig Paul Calder, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it for failure to exhaust state remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Roettgen v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir.1994), and affirm. 3 Calder contends that the district court erred in construing his section 1983 complaint as a habeas petition and dismissing it for failure to exhaust state remedies. We disagree. 4 "[W]hen a…