Badgett

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Eric Wayne Badgett appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Badgett’s claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by Oregon’s Ballot Measure 11 as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 , 119 S.Ct. *685 1728 , 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) (holding that to comply with the exhaustion doctrine a petitioner must complete “one full round” of the state’s appellate process); Reese v. Baldwin, 282 F.3d 1184, 1190 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that habeas claims that were not fairly presented to the Oregon courts on direct appeal were procedurally defaulted).

AFFIRMED.

Judge Kleinfeld concurs in the judgment but would affirm on the merits. See Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir.2001) (concluding that “Measure 11, as applied to [juvenile petitioner], does not violate ... the protection against cruel and unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment”).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited…