Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

Rosenblum v. Campbell

Rosenblum v. Campbell
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 8, 2010 · Fernandez, Gould, Smith
370 F. App'x 782

Counsel

Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant., Phillip Rosenblum, pro se., Attorney General for the State of California, Esquire, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Rosenblum v. Campbell

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Phillip Rosen-blum appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rosenblum contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a stay and abeyance. The district court did not abuse its discretion, see Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 656 (9th Cir. 2005), because its finding that Rosenblum failed to demonstrate “good cause” to excuse his failure to exhaust was consistent with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), and Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2008).

Rosenblum’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is DENIED. Because Rosenblum is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings. Accordingly, we do not consider the pro se filing received on June 10, 2009.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.