Case Name: Phillip ROSENBLUM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roseanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 370 F. App'x 782
Docket Number: No. 07-56495
Parties: Phillip ROSENBLUM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roseanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 782–783

Head Matter:
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 De fender’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).

Opinion:
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.