Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01637/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01637-2/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 

MICHAEL DEWAYNE ALLEN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON – SAC, 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-1637 AC P 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the 

undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 

305(a). ECF No. 6. 

After reviewing the petition, the court found that it appeared that petitioner had not 

exhausted his state court remedies because the petition indicated that the claim had not been 

presented to the California Supreme Court and there was no allegation that state court remedies 

were not available to petitioner. ECF No. 10. Petitioner was ordered to show cause why the 

petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies and was warned that 

failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of this action. Id. 

Since the order to show cause was issued, another option has become available to 

petitioner. The Ninth Circuit recently held that a petitioner may seek a stay pursuant to Rhines v. 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-AC Document 11 Filed 02/23/16 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

Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), to preserve the filing date of his federal petition, even when the 

petition contains only unexhausted claims. Mena v. Long, -- F.3d --, No. 14-55102, 2016 WL 

625405, at *4, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2663, at *12 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016). Therefore, if 

petitioner is unable to show that he has in fact exhausted his state court remedies, or that state 

court remedies are not available to him, he must advise the court whether he is seeking a stay 

under Rhines. 

If plaintiff seeks a stay under Rhines, he must show that (1) good cause exists for his 

failure to have first exhausted the claims in state court, (2) the claim or claims at issue potentially 

have merit, and (3) there has been no indication that petitioner has intentionally delayed pursuing 

the litigation. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. If petitioner cannot show that he exhausted his state 

court remedies or that state court remedies are not available to him and he does not request a stay 

pursuant to Rhines, this case will be dismissed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of service of this order, 

petitioner must do one of the following: 

 1. Provide evidence that he has exhausted his state court remedies. This can be shown by 

providing a copy of the California Supreme Court order denying his state habeas petition; 

 2. Explain why state court remedies are not available to him; or 

 3. File a notice telling the court that he has not exhausted his state court remedies and that 

remedies are available. Petitioner must also tell the court whether he wants to stay this case. If 

petitioner wants to stay the case, he must file a motion for stay and abeyance at the same time he 

files his notice. The motion must explain why he did not exhaust his claims in state court, why 

his case has merit, and why he has not unnecessarily delayed in bringing his claims to state court. 

 Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the petition. 

DATED: February 22, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01637-AC Document 11 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 2