Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01627/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01627-8/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

CRAIG LAMAR REID,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1627 FCD EFB P

vs.

WARDEN OF HIGH DESERT 

STATE PRISON, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On January 31, 2007, petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings and hold

his petition in abeyance so that he may exhaust his claims in state court. Respondents filed a

response in opposition on October 26, 2007, arguing that the petition in this case contains only

one claim and that petitioner has not identified the claims he intends to exhaust in state court.

The United States Supreme Court in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) held that it

“would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed

petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust . . . .” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. 

In the instant case, petitioner has failed to identify the claims he intends to exhaust, and has not

set forth any facts to show good cause for a stay. The motion therefore appears to be wholly

without merit. 

Case 2:06-cv-01627-FCD-KJN Document 25 Filed 02/14/08 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

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s January 31, 2007, motion

for stay and abeyance be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 14, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01627-FCD-KJN Document 25 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2