Leombruno

MEMORANDUM **

Idaho state prisoner Lawrence A. Leombruno appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failing to exhaust state remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Kou Lo Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2003), and we vacate and remand.

Leombruno contends that he properly exhausted state remedies by filing a petition for habeas corpus in the Idaho Supreme Court, who decided the petition on the merits. We agree.

The order of the Idaho Supreme Court stated that it denied Leombruno’s petition “after due consideration.” The supreme court’s failure to specify the basis for its denial of Leombruno’s petition is immaterial, given the fact that Leombruno clearly presented his claim to the court. See Smith v. Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 333-34 , 98 S.Ct. 597 , 54 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978) (stating that the exhaustion requirement does not “turn upon whether a state appellate court chooses to ignore in its opinion a federal constitutional claim squarely raised in peti *374 tioner’s brief in the state court”); cf. Beam v. Paskett, 3 F.3d 1301, 1305-06 (9th Cir.1993) (concluding that…