seen Rider threaten Lemons or Edens. 7 . Appellees incorrectly assert that Edens failed to claim in the district court that Schultz did not adequately cross-examine Rider, and that Edens raises this issue for the first time on appeal. Edens' memorandum in support of his petition in the district court clearly raised the issue of Schultz’ failure to cross-examining Rider. R.O.A., Vol. I, Doc. 2, at 10. Thus, there is no bar to our review of the issue here. 8 .Appellees assert, as they did before the district court, that Edens’ claim that Schultz failed to adequately cross-examine Leisek was not raised in the state court proceedings and thus should not be reviewed for the first time in a federal habeas corpus action. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982) (<HOLDING>). We agree, however, with the district court's
holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted in state court holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed holding that habeas corpus petitions are premature until administrative remedies have been exhausted holding that a district court faced with a mixed petition should dismiss only the unexhausted claims in the habeas petition and stay further proceedings on the remaining portion until the petitioner has exhausted hisher remedies in state court