March 29, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1741





                                   DAVID L. WELLS,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                    JOHN MARSHALL,



                                Respondent, Appellee.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            David L. Wells on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Scott   Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  William  J.  Meade,
            ___________________                            __________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________











                      Per Curiam.   We have  reviewed the record  and the
                      __________































            parties'  briefs  and  affirm  the dismissal  of  the  habeas



            petition, filed pursuant  to 28 U.S.C.   2254,  of petitioner



            David L. Wells.  We rely essentially on the reasons set forth



            in the district court's  Memorandum and Order.  See  Wells v.
                                                            ___  _____



            Marshall,  885 F. Supp.  314  (D. Mass.  1995).   We  add  the
            ________



            following comments.



                      1.  Petitioner is not excused from exhausting state



            remedies  merely because he  claims that his  state trial was



            unconstitutional  and   that  the  allegedly   altered  trial



            transcript prevents  him from challenging  his conviction  in



            any  state proceeding.  A  new superior court  judge has been



            assigned  to   petitioner's  motion  for  a   new  trial  and



            petitioner  has  presented  no  evidence  that  he  has  been



            thwarted in  proceeding before  this judge.   Indeed,  at the



            April 26, 1995 hearing, the judge stated that he was ready to



            hear petitioner's claims and, when petitioner  indicated that



            he would rather proceed in federal court,  left to petitioner



            the  decision when to reactivate  the state action.   In this



            situation,  it  hardly  can  be  said that  resort  to  state



            remedies would be futile.   See Gagne v. Fair, 835 F.2d  6, 9
                                        ___ _____    ____



            (1st  Cir.   1987)  (unless  the  state   remedy  is  clearly



            deficient,  resort to  the state process  will not  be deemed



            futile).  Comity  therefore mandates that the  state be given



            the first  opportunity to rule  on petitioner's claims.   See
                                                                      ___



            id.;  Layne v. Gunter, 559  F.2d 850, 851-52  (1st Cir. 1977)
            ___   _____    ______







                                         -3-





























            (where the state process was "revived" after petitioner filed



            a  federal  habeas  petition  and  therefore   currently  was



            available  to  him,  exhaustion   of  the  state  process  is



            appropriate), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1038 (1978).
                          ____________



                      2.    We do  not  see  what relevance  the  problem



            petitioner  is  experiencing  with  his  vision  has  to  the



            exhaustion question.  That is, petitioner would face the same



            difficulties no  matter  in which  court  he proceeded.    If



            petitioner  requires  accommodations   --  such  as  extended



            deadlines for the filing of pleadings -- he can ask the state



            court for such adjustments.



                      3.  In  closing, we remind petitioner  that he must



            present  to the  state court  all the  grounds for  relief he



            intends to raise  in the federal court.  See  Gagne, 835 F.2d
                                                     ___  _____



            at 7 (in order to meet the exhaustion requirement, petitioner



            "must  have fairly  presented  the substance  of his  federal



            habeas  claim  to  the  state court  before  seeking  federal



            review").



                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________   ___































                                         -4-