Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05423/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05423-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 SCOTT BRUMETT,

Petitioner,

 v.

 ANTHONY P. KANE, 

Respondent. /

No. C 04-05423 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Scott Brumett (“Brumett”), a state prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition on several

grounds, including that Brumett has not exhausted his claims that (1) pursuant to the ApprendiBlakely doctrine, the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) is precluded from relying on facts of

the crime not found by a jury in making its parole determination, and (2) the Board violated

Brumett’s due process rights by breaching its contractual obligations.

While the Court reserves ruling at this time on Respondent’s motion to dismiss, it

appears that Brumett may not have exhausted these claims in the California state courts. In the

event this Court finds Brumett failed to exhaust these claims, Brumett requests that the Court

stay his petition and hold it in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust. Under Rhines

v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005), the stay and abeyance of a petition raising both

exhausted and unexhausted claims is appropriate when the district court determines: (1) “there

was good cause for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims in state court;” (2) the unexhausted

claims are not “plainly meritless;” and (3) reasonable time limits are placed on a petitioner’s

Case 3:04-cv-05423-JSW Document 26 Filed 07/24/06 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

trip to state court and back.” Although Brumett requests that his petition be stayed and held in

abeyance, he has not briefed whether such requested relief is appropriate under Rhines. 

Accordingly, the Court Orders Brumett to Show Cause why his petition should be stayed and

held in abeyance.

Brumett is directed to file a response to this Order to Show Cause, which is not to

exceed five pages, by no later than July 31, 2006. Respondent shall have until August 7, 2006

to file a reply to Brumett response, if any, also not to exceed five pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05423-JSW Document 26 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2