Jimmy Lee Cline v. Charlis Marshall

89 F.3d 844 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jimmy Lee CLINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charlis MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-17258. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 30, 1996. * Decided May 3, 1996. Before: BROWNING, REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner Jimmie Lee Cline appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, challenging his conviction for murder, kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon. 3 Generally, a state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies before he can raise a federal claim in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) and (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982). Cline conceded in his federal habeas petition that he failed to raise three of his four claims in a state proceeding, because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel, which…