James Mincoff v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES MINCOFF,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;
et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-56990
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00524-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56990 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 of 2 --