The j'udgment dismissing the application of Donald James Schnepp for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release from Oregon State Penitentiary is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. The warden of Oregon State Penitentiary was not named a respondent. See Goss v. State of Alaska, 9 Cir., 325 F.2d 1019; Bohm v. State of Alaska, 9 Cir., 320 F.2d 851.

2. According to allegations contained in the application, Schnepp now has a post conviction proceeding pending in the courts of Oregon, and therefore has not exhausted his presently-available state remedies, this being a condition precedent to the granting, by a federal court, of an application by a state prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

3. The rule of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 333, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479, upon which appellant relies in asserting that, as a result of the manner and length of his detention, he was deprived of rights under the federal Constitution, has no application because: (a) those decisions and the rule they announce relate to Rule 5(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and have no con *289 stitutional connotation applicable in state court criminal proceedings. State v. Jordan, 83 Ariz. 248, 320 P.2d 446; (b) the constitutional test with regard to state prisoners is whether the detention and examination is coercive (Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 591, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037) and there is here no allegation of coercive examination; and (c) it is not alleged that any incriminating statements were obtained as a result of the detention complained of, or that Schnepp’s determination to enter a plea of guilty was affected thereby.