Lambert

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph W. Austin, a Washington State prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as unexhausted and procedurally barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition based on procedural grounds, see Bianchi v. Blodgett, 925 F.2d 305, 308 (9th Cir.1991), and we reverse and remand.

Austin contends that the district court erred by denying his habeas petition as unexhausted. We agree. A prisoner must exhaust all state remedies before submitting a habeas petition to a district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b). In order to exhaust, a petitioner must “fairly present” his claims to the state courts. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). A petitioner may fairly present his claims to the state supreme court by attaching to his petition fully briefed arguments previously submitted to the lower court. See Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that a petitioner fairly presented his claims to the state supreme court by including his earlier petition to the state court of appeals as an exhibit). Since…