Phillip Rosenblum v. Roseanne Campbell

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP ROSENBLUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROSEANNE CAMPBELL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56495
D.C. No. CV-06-01156-JVS
MEMORANDUM *
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
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EF/Research 07-56495 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --