From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lester v. Shimoda

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 8, 1987
855 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1987)

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.com

Opinion


855 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1987) Donald LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edwin SHIMODA, and Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, Defendants-Appellees. No. 84-1592. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit July 8, 1987

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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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.

MEMORANDUM

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.


Summaries of

Lester v. Shimoda

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 8, 1987
855 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1987)

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.com
Case details for

Lester v. Shimoda

Case Details

Full title:Donald LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edwin SHIMODA, and Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 8, 1987

Citations

855 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1987)

Citing Cases

Reno v. W. Cab Co.

So declining jurisdiction would not result in a significant loss of the time and resources of the parties or…

McCarthy v. Amazon.com

See also, e.g., Duncan v. Kelsey Hayes, Inc., 855 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1988) (concluding that the "obvious or…