Opinion
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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 April 2, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; No. CV-90-0222-RMB, Richard M. Bilby, Chief Judge, Presiding.
D.Ariz.
AFFIRMED.
Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and FARRIS and BRUNETTI, 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.
Charles Withers, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1991), and affirm.
A state prisoner must exhaust all available state court remedies before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam). The petitioner has the burden of alleging exhaustion. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1023 (1982).
Withers filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging various procedural and constitutional errors in his state court criminal proceedings. The district court dismissed the petition because Withers alleged that his state court proceedings were ongoing. We affirm the district court because Withers's allegations indicate that he has not exhausted his state remedies. See Duckworth, 454 U.S. at 3; Cartwright, 650 F.2d at 1104.
AFFIRMED.