Astarte Davis-Rice v. PAUL COPENHAVER, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ASTARTE DAVIS-RICE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-15968
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05972-MMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Astarte Davis-Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we remand to the district court for reconsideration.
FILED
OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-15968 2
Davis-Rice contends that the Bureau of Prisons failed to give her credit for
time spent in custody prior to sentencing. The district court dismissed her petition
as duplicative of a previously filed action. In her petition, Davis-Rice conceded
that she previously raised this claim. However, the district court previously
dismissed the claims as unexhausted, and Davis-Rice alleged in her petition that
the claims are now exhausted. We remand to the district court for reconsideration
because the order did not address Davis-Rice’s allegation that her previously
dismissed claims are now exhausted.
REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --