Barry Simon Jameson v. JAMES YATES, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BARRY SIMON JAMESON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES YATES, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-16543
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01344-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Barry Simon Jameson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

We certify for appeal on our own motion the issues presented in this1
appeal.
09-16543 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.1
The district court properly determined that it was barred from reaching the
merits of Jameson’s claims by an independent and adequate state procedural rule.
Here, the state met its initial burden by adequately pleading the existence of the
state procedural rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Even
construing Jameson’s pro se pleadings liberally, Jameson failed to place the
independence or adequacy of that rule in issue, arguing only that the state court
incorrectly determined that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See
Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 586 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Once the state has
adequately pled the existence of an independent and adequate state procedural
ground as an affirmative defense, the burden to place that defense in issue shifts to
the petitioner.”). The district court correctly determined that Jameson failed to
establish cause for the procedural default. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 750 (1991).
Jameson’s contention that the state court incorrectly determined that he
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies does not state a cognizable claim of a
violation of federal law. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“[F]ederal

-- 2 of 3 --

09-16543 3
habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law[.]”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --