From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murphy v. Mahoney

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 17, 2008
308 F. App'x 45 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 05-35241.

Submitted November 17, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed December 17, 2008.

Richard D. Murphy, Montana State Prison, Deer Lodge, MT, pro se.

Brenda E. Thompson, Montana Dept. of Corrections, Carol E. Schmidt, Esq., AGMT-Office of the Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT, for Respondents-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00114-SEH.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, B. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Richard Murphy appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The district court found that Murphy procedurally defaulted on his claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

The district court also denied Murphy's sentencing claims on the merits, but that ruling is not at issue here.

The Montana trial court entered judgment against Murphy on July 2, 1993. Under Montana law, Murphy had five years from the date of his conviction to file a petition for post-conviction relief. Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-102 (1993). Murphy filed a state habeas petition in 2003, but the Montana Supreme Court rejected it as an inappropriate vehicle for asserting his claims. Since the time for filing a state post-conviction relief petition has long since passed, Murphy cannot return to state court to exhaust his claims. Thus, Murphy is procedurally barred from asserting his claims in federal court, and no exception applies that would excuse his failure to file a petition earlier. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

The district court decision is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Murphy v. Mahoney

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 17, 2008
308 F. App'x 45 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Murphy v. Mahoney

Case Details

Full title:Richard D. MURPHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike MAHONEY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 17, 2008

Citations

308 F. App'x 45 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Kone v. Hernandez

"[A] federal district court should dismiss a wholly-unexhausted habeas petition with prejudice where it is…

Gayles v. Uttecht

A federal district court may dismiss a wholly-unexhausted habeas petition with prejudice only where it is…