Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01904-0/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)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT E. PAPENHAUSEN,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA 

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-1904 JAM CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner commenced this federal habeas action on August 13, 2014, challenging his 

2012 conviction and sentence for drug offenses. On August 22, 2014, the court directed 

respondent to file a response to the petition within sixty days. Two motions are before the court. 

I. Petitioner’s Motion

On October 2, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended 

petition. As there is no filing deadline to be extended, the court construes this as a motion to 

amend.

With regard to habeas petitions, district courts have “the discretion to decide whether [a] 

motion to amend should be granted.” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, 

it is not clear why petitioner seeks to amend or what new claims he seeks to bring in an amended 

petition. As he has not attached a proposed amended petition, the court is unable to determine 

whether it complies with procedural requirements, such as exhaustion of state remedies, and 

Case 2:14-cv-01904-JAM-CKD Document 13 Filed 10/27/14 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

27

28

2

whether the proposed new claims are cognizable on federal habeas review. Accordingly the court 

will deny petitioner’s motion without prejudice to renewal. If petitioner files another motion to 

amend, he should submit a proposed amended petition on court’s form for actions pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner also seeks an administrative stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 

(2005) while he exhausts state remedies as to one or more claims. Under the Rhines procedure, 

the petitioner may proceed on a “mixed petition,” i.e., one containing both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims, and his unexhausted claims remain pending in federal court while he returns 

to state court to exhaust them. See Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005). To obtain 

a Rhines stay of a mixed petition pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims, the petitioner 

must show that (1) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (2) petitioner had 

good cause for his earlier failure to exhaust state remedies. 544 U.S. 269. Here, petitioner has 

not met either element of the Rhines test, or indeed made clear what claim(s) he seeks to exhaust 

in the state courts. 

II. Respondent’s Motion

Respondent seeks an extension of time to file a response to the original petition. (ECF 

No. 11.) Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 2, 2014 motion, construed as a motion to amend (ECF No. 8), is 

denied without prejudice to renewal; and

2. Respondent’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 11) is granted. Respondent shall 

file a responsive pleading on or before November 20, 2014.

Dated: October 27, 2014

2/pape1904.111

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01904-JAM-CKD Document 13 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 2