Ndoh

Discussion 25 A petitioner in state custody proceeding with a federal habeas petition must exhaust state 26 judicial remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. See § 2254(b)(1); Murray v. Schriro, 882 27 F.3d 778, 807 (9th Cir. 2018). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity; it gives the state court 28 the first opportunity to correct the state’s alleged constitutional deprivations. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each of his claims before presenting it to the federal court. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). The existence of a parallel state-level proceeding may justify our abstention from the case. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In this circuit, two procedures for staying a petition may be available while a petitioner exhausts his claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Rhines, a stay and abeyance is available for “mixed petitions,” or those containing both…