McNeeley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition on two grounds: (1) the district court erred in finding that McNeeley failed to exhaust state remedies; and (2) the district court аbused its discretion in failing to certify the exhaustion issue to the Idaho Supreme Court. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
McNeeley pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and was sentenced by an Idaho district court to an indeterminate life term in prison. McNeeley appealed his convictiоn and life sentence to the Idaho Supreme Court, which assigned the case to the Idahо Court of Appeals under Idaho Appellate Rule (I.A.R.) 108. 1 The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, and denied McNeeley’s petition for rehearing. McNeeley then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal district сourt. Finding that McNee-ley failed to petition the Idaho Supreme Court for review of the court of appeals’ decision, the district court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Later, McNeeley filed a motion for certification to the Idaho Supreme Court, which was denied by the district court. McNeeley filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
1. Exhaustion of State Remedies
MсNeeley argues that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies because a petition for supreme court review under 1.A.R. 118
2
is not a “right” to be exhausted. Our review is
de novo. Zimmerlee v. Keeney,
The exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 demands that federal habeas corpus applicants exhaust all stаte remedies before proceeding to federal court.
Jackson v. Cupp,
McNeeley argues that dеspite his failure to appeal under I.A.R. 118, he exhausted *232 his state remedies. He claims that thе Idaho Supreme Court had a genuine opportunity to reach the merits of his federal contentions. We reject this argument on the basis of Rule 108(b)’s criteria for assignment of cases to the court of appeals. The supreme court is limited by Rule 108(b) to consideration of each court’s work load, and whether the case involved existing legal principles or was of a particular class of cases reserved for the supreme court. Thus, the assignment process is essentially a categorization mechanism designed to increase judicial efficiency, and therefore is not a review on the merits which the exhaustion doctrine requires.
McNeeley further argues he showed cause for his procedural default because of his interpretation of Í.A.R. 118.
See Engle v. Isaac,
2. Certification
MсNeeley argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to certify the exhaustion issue to the Idaho Supreme Court. We reject this argument because the controlling question here is one of federal, not state, law.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. I.A.R. 108 reads in part:
Assignment of Cases. — (a) Cases Reserved to Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals shall hear and decide all cases assigned to it by the Supreme Court; provided that the Supreme Court will not assign the following cases: ... (b) Assignment of Cases to Court оf Appeals. Generally, cases which involve consideration of existing legal princiрles will be assigned to the Court of Appeals. In assigning cases to the Court of Appeals, duе regard will be given to the work load of each court, and to the error review and cоrrection functions of the Court of Appeals. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court will retain the following сlasses of cases: ...
. I.A.R. 118 reads in part:
Petition for review by the Supreme Court.— (a) Petition, Time for Filing, Ruling by Supreme Cоurt. Any party to a proceeding aggrieved by opinion or order of the Court of Appeals may, within twenty-one (21) days after the announcement of the opinion or order, or the announcement of an opinion or order on rehearing or a modified opinion without rehearing, physically file a petition for review with the Clerk of the Supreme Court....