Dwayne Randall JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carl ZENON, Respondent-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the 27 Ninth Circuit’s “‘essentially the same’ standard [was] no longer viable” after the Supreme 28 Court decided Duncan
• holding that a petitioner does not raise federal claims by implication when raising state claims even if the two are “essentially the same”
• indicating that the petitioner’s un-articulated federal claim remains “unex-hausted regardless of its similarity to the issues raised in state court”
• holding that petitioner failed to first present his 21 habeas claim in state court where he asserted in state court that admission of prior 1 act evidence was an “evidentiary error” that was not harmless under state law, 2 specifically
• explaining that a habeas petitioner has satisfied the exhaustion requirement if the federal claim was presented to the highest state court with jurisdiction to con- sider it
• remanding claims a petitioner failed to “fairly present” to determine “whether any state remedies remain available and, if none are available, whether [petitioner’s] claim is procedurally barred under [state] law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).