Case Name: Tyrant WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert AMBROSELLI, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-03
Citations: 435 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 07-55826
Parties: Tyrant WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert AMBROSELLI, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
Tyrant WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert AMBROSELLI, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55826.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 3, 2011.
Stephanie Marie Adraktas, Law Office of Stephanie Adraktas, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Tyrant Walker, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Attorney General for the State of California, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, Sarah J. Farhat, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
California state prisoner Tyrant Walker appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand to the district court.
Walker contends that the district court erred by summarily dismissing his pro se habeas petition as unexhausted, and because his conclusory allegations did not warrant habeas relief. The record indicates that Walker fairly presented his ineffective assistance of counsel claims as federal constitutional issues by referencing the federal constitution and citing to federal case law in his habeas petition before the California Supreme Court. See Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 668 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Walker did exhaust his claims.
The district court erred by summarily dismissing Walker's petition without granting him leave to amend. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir.1971) ([A] "petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted."). Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Walker to amend his petition.
Walker's motion for judicial notice is granted. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir.2002) (judicial notice taken of relevant state court documents with a direct relationship to appeal).
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.