Dorenbos

MEMORANDUM **

Alan Dorenbos, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2254 petition, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Dorenbos acknowledges that he has an outstanding motion for a new trial in Washington superior court, but contends that the issues contained in that motion have since been resolved by the superior court’s factual finding pertaining to a later discovery motion. Therefore, Dorenbos contends, since there are no remaining issues unresolved, federal review should be permitted. We reject this contention.

The United States Supreme Court has held that in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of section 2254, habeas petitioners must fairly present federal claims to the state courts in order to give the state the opportunity to pass upon and to correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 , 115 S.Ct. 887 , 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) (per curiam); see also Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 , 109 S.Ct. 1056…