Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00578/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00578-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Geary Wayne Walton, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-00578-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us petitioner’s motion to stay habeas corpus proceedings pending

outcome of state court proceedings (doc. 58), addenda to the motion (docs. 60, 71), and

petitioner’s motion for expedited ruling on the motion to stay proceedings (doc. 59).

Petitioner filed the instant habeas corpus petition on March 28, 2011 (doc. 2). He

filed an amended petition on July 14, 2011 (doc. 11), a second amended petition on January

31, 2012 (doc. 36), and after months of delay and extensions of time, petitioner has now filed

a third amended petition on September 14, 2012. This case has been pending for over 18

months. Nevertheless, petitioner now asks us to stay these proceedings pending the

resolution of two state court petitions for post-conviction review. 

Habeas corpus relief is unavailable “unless the applicant has exhausted the remedies

available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Generally, “a district court

must dismiss habeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims.” Rose v.

Case 2:11-cv-00578-ROS Document 80 Filed 10/05/12 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 -

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522, 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982). However, a district court has limited

discretion to hold in abeyance a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims in order to allow a petitioner to return to state court to exhaust additional claims while

the federal proceedings are stayed. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277, 125 S. Ct. 1528,

1535 (2005). Stay and abeyance is appropriate only when (1) there is good cause for

petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are

potentially meritorious, and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner has engaged in

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 278, 125 S. Ct. at 1535. 

Petitioner has made no showing to satisfy these criteria and our independent review

of the record demonstrates no reason to prolong this case any further. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner’s motion to stay habeas corpus

proceedings (doc. 58).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING petitioner’s motion for expedited ruling

as moot (doc. 59).

DATED this 4th day of October, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00578-ROS Document 80 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 2