Case Name: Astarte DAVIS-RICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 08-15968
Parties: Astarte DAVIS-RICE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Astarte DAVIS-RICE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-15968.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Astarte Davis-Rice, San Bruno, CA, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Astarte Davis-Rice appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we remand to the district court for reconsideration.
Davis-Rice contends that the Bureau of Prisons failed to give her credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing. The district court dismissed her petition as du-plicative of a previously filed action. In her petition, Davis-Rice conceded that she previously raised this claim. However, the district court previously dismissed the claims as unexhausted, and Davis-Rice alleged in her petition that the claims are now exhausted. We remand to the district court for reconsideration because the order did not address Davis-Rice's allegation that her previously dismissed claims are now exhausted.
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.