Thompson
Thompson v. Duncan
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Petitioner-Appellant Lonnie Thompson appeals from a district court ruling dismissing his petition for federal habeas relief on the ground that two of his claims had not been properly exhausted in earlier state habeas proceedings. The sole issue in this case is whether Mr. Thompson presented the California Supreme Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of the claims presented in his federal petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c), and we reverse.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(A), provides that “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” So-called “mixed” petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims are insuffi cient—all of a petitioner’s claims must be properly exhausted before federal habeas relief becomes available. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510-11 , 102 S.Ct. 1198 , 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982); Carothers v. Rhay, 594 F.2d 225, 228-29 (9th Cir.1979).