Case Name: Jason Lee SCHMIDT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD and Attorney General for the State of Montana, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 615 F. App'x 449
Docket Number: No. 14-35699
Parties: Jason Lee SCHMIDT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD and Attorney General for the State of Montana, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
Jason Lee SCHMIDT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD and Attorney General for the State of Montana, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 14-35699.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
Jason Lee Schmidt, Deer Lodge, MT, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Montana state prisoner Jason Lee Schmidt appeals pro se from the district court's judgment summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to exhaust. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2254 habeas petition for failure to exhaust, see Rhoades v. Henry, 638 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
Schmidt contends that the district court should have excused the exhaustion requirement because of the Montana state court's delay in addressing his petition for post-conviction relief. At the time the district court dismissed Schmidt's federal petition, his amended state petition had only been pending for two months. On this record, Schmidt has not shown that the available state corrective process is ineffective. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B); Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 528, 530-31 (9th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.