Summary
denying petitioner's motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief; "[b]ecause [petitioner] is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings."
Summary of this case from Wilkins v. MacomberOpinion
No. 07-56495.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 8, 2010.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Phillip Rosenblum, pro se.
Attorney General for the State of California, Esquire, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-01156-JVS.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Phillip Rosenblum appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Rosenblum contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a stay and abeyance. The district court did not abuse its discretion, see Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 656 (9th Cir. 2005), because its finding that Rosenblum failed to demonstrate "good cause" to excuse his failure to exhaust was consistent with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), and Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2008).
Rosenblum's motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is DENIED. Because Rosenblum is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings. Accordingly, we do not consider the pro se filing received on June 10, 2009.