Rosenblum v. Campbell

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHILLIP ROSENBLUM, No. 07-56495 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-01156-JVS v. MEMORANDUM * ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Phillip Rosenblum appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. We * 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). EF/Research 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 (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. EF/Research 2 07-56495