Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05308/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05308-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

BREDRICK FARR,

Petitioner. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5308 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AND

ABEYANCE

(Docket Nos. 3 & 4)

On August 29, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed in this

court a form Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition. The court

identified at the top of the form is the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

An application for leave to file a second or successive petition must be filed in the court of

appeals, not in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)-(C). 

On September 27, 2006, petitioner filed a “Request to Withdraw Petition,” in which

he seeks dismissal of the instant action without prejudice in light of the continued pendency

of his claims in state court. Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

party bringing an action has the absolute right to dismiss such action by filing a notice of

dismissal “at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for

summary judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(i). As no respondent has been identified,

let alone filed a response, petitioner’s request for voluntary dismissal of the above-titled

action is hereby GRANTED, and said action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to

petitioner’s renewing his application in the court of appeals or filing a new federal habeas

Case 3:06-cv-05308-MMC Document 5 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

petition in this court after available state remedies have been exhausted..

On September 29, 2006, shortly after filing his request to withdraw the “petition,”

petitioner filed a Request for Stay and Abeyance, in which petitioner states he has not

exhausted the claims therein and therefore seeks to have the instant action stayed during the

time he presents his claims to the state courts. The United States Supreme Court has held

that a district court may stay a mixed habeas petition to allow the petitioner to exhaust in

state court. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). A district court does not have

discretion to stay a petition containing only unexhausted claims, however. Rasberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). In any event, as noted above, there is no

“petition” before this court. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for a stay and abeyance of this

matter is hereby DENIED. Once petitioner has exhausted his claims in the state courts, he

may file a new petition in this court containing his exhausted claims.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 3 and 4.

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05308-MMC Document 5 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 2