James Mincoff v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 396 F. App'x 468 ( 2010 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010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
JAMES MINCOFF, No. 08-56990
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00524-DMS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;
et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner James Mincoff appeals from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
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).
Mincoff contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition on
the grounds that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies because any attempt
to exhaust such remedies would have been futile. The record reflects that the
district court did not err by dismissing the petition as unexhausted. See Martinez v.
Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986) (federal prisoners required to exhaust
administrative remedies prior to bringing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus);
see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting the
exceptions to exhaustion and concluding that petitioner did not show such
exceptions to be applicable).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56990