Court Opinion

ID: 9438862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:08:19.677382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:58.926199
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
Another panel of this court previously decided Seawright’s appeal of his first habeas petition and concluded that Seawright had failed to exhaust his federal claims in state court. Seawright v. Terhune, 42 Fed.Appx. 945, 946 (9th Cir.2002). Even though the panel did not reach the merits of Seawright’s habeas petition, oddly the panel “affirmed” the district court’s judgment, id., which denied Seawright’s habeas petition on the merits and dismissed it with prejudice.
While this court is permitted to affirm the district court’s judgment of the unexhausted claim on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), it is not clear from the previous panel’s memorandum disposition that this is what the panel actually intended. Thus, it is our court that may have made a fatal mistake. But because Sea-wright’s attorney did not file a petition for panel rehearing and the mandate issued long ago, the judgment of the previous panel unfortunately stands.