Thomas Caso v. C.E. Floyd, Warden

95 F.3d 1156 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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 CASO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.E. FLOYD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-15364. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 12, 1996. * Decided Aug. 26, 1996. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Thomas Caso appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . Caso contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. We review de novo. See Cooney v. Edwards, 971 F.2d 345, 346 (9th Cir.1992). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and affirm. 3 A federal prisoner must ordinarily exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a habeas corpus petition. See Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam). Exhaustion is not required if the prisoner's interests in immediate judicial review--including…