Court Opinion

ID: 9876207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:54:14.712062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:09.860770
License: Public Domain

SETTLE, District Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment reached by the court. In my view, the impediment that stood m Valenzuela’s way from November 6, 2008 to July 8, 2009 was the absence of an exhausted claim. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further as to the petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to exhaust.”). Although this impediment stood in Valenzuela’s way, our circuit recently held that district courts may accept petitions asserting only unexhausted claims. Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016).