Summary
concluding that the "obvious or known" common law exception to negligent and strict product liability in the failure to warn context appears to still be in force after the passage of the WPLA
Summary of this case from McCarthy v. Amazon.comOpinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided July 29, 1988.
D.Hawaii
AFFIRMED.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Hawaii; Harold M. Fong, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SKOPIL, SCHROEDER and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Donald Lester, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition contains nine claims. Eight were exhausted by direct appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The ninth claim of ineffectiveness of his appellate counsel on failing to file a petition for rehearing in the Hawaii Supreme Court was not exhausted.
A district court must dismiss habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners containing exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the petition.
AFFIRMED.