Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0468-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James MINCOFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-56990.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Michael Joseph McCabe, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael J. McCabe, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      U.S. Attorney CV, Esquire, Todd W. Robinson, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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

Federal prisoner James Mincoff appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Mincoff contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition on the grounds that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies because any attempt to exhaust such remedies would have been futile. The record reflects that the district court did not err by dismissing the petition as unexhausted. See Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir.1986) (federal prisoners required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.1991) (noting the exceptions to exhaustion and concluding that petitioner did not show such exceptions to be applicable).

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