Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02276/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02276-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL L. DIETLE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2276 FCD GGH P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 17, 2007, respondent filed an answer to the

fourth amended petition filed July 13, 2007.

On October 5, 2007, petitioner filed a motion stating that he has returned to state

court to exhaust additional claims. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005) the

Supreme Court held that a district court may stay a petition containing both exhausted and

unexhausted claims while the petitioner returns to state court to exhaust new claims when 1)

good cause exists for petitioner’s failure to exhaust; 2) petitioner’s unexhausted claims are not

plainly meritless; and 3) there is no indication that petitioner engaged in “abusive litigation

tactics or intentional delay.” 544 U.S. at 277-278, 125 S.Ct. 1528. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02276-ATG Document 47 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

In order for the court to consider staying this action while petitioner litigates new

claims in state court, petitioner must file an amended petition containing the exhausted claims

addressed in respondent’s answer and his unexhausted claims now being raised in state court. He

must also file a separate motion requesting that this action be stayed, addressing the three factors

set forth above.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner is granted thirty days

from the date of this order to file a fifth amended petition containing his unexhausted and

exhausted claims and a motion to stay; respondent’s response to the motion to stay is due twenty

days thereafter; if petitioner does not respond to this order, this action will proceed on the

exhausted claims raised in the fourth amended petition. 

DATED: 12/18/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

die2276.fb

Case 2:06-cv-02276-ATG Document 47 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2