Case ID: f-appx_370/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Phillip ROSENBLUM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roseanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-56495.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    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.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Phillip Rosen-blum 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.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.