Does a motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus require a full response to the petition?

We review the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus independently without deference to the district court's legal conclusions. Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 2857 (1988). We discuss each of Sands' contentions and the facts pertinent thereto under separate headings.

Sands argues that the district court lacked the power to entertain and act upon a motion to dismiss a petition for habeas corpus relief prior to requiring a response to the petitioner's allegations. We recently rejected this contention in White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599 (9th Cir.1989). We held in White that a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds is a proper response to a section 2254 petition. Id. at 602-603. The question of exhaustion of state remedies does not require a full answer to the allegations set forth in the petition. The district court did not err in acting upon respondents' motion to dismiss.