Barry Jameson v. James Yates
Barry Simon JAMESON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James YATES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Lawrence J. O'Neill (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry G. Silverman (author), Smith, Consuelo M. Callahan
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY SIMON JAMESON, No. 09-16543 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01344-LJO v. MEMORANDUM * JAMES YATES, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Barry Simon Jameson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253,1 and we affirm.
The district court properly determined that it was barred from reaching the merits of Jameson’s claims by an independent and adequate state procedural rule.
Here, the state met its initial burden by adequately pleading the existence of the state procedural rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Even construing Jameson’s pro se pleadings liberally, Jameson failed to place the independence or adequacy of that rule in issue, arguing only that the state court incorrectly determined that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Once the state has adequately pled the existence of an independent and adequate state procedural ground as an affirmative defense, the burden to place that defense in issue shifts to the petitioner.”). The district court correctly determined that Jameson failed to establish cause for the procedural default. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 750 (1991).
Jameson’s contention that the state court incorrectly determined that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies does not state a cognizable claim of a violation of federal law. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“[F]ederal 1 We certify for appeal on our own motion the issues presented in this appeal.
2 09-16543 habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law[.]”).
AFFIRMED.
3 09-16543