Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00678/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00678-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS EARL EVANS,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES TILTON,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00678 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE AND

GRANTING FIFTEEN DAYS FROM DATE

OF SERVICE TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND/OR

REQUEST TO WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED

CLAIMS IN LIEU OF DISMISSAL, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[Docs. 13, 14]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 4, 2007. Pursuant to

this Court’s order of May 18, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as

containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims on July 16, 2007. (Court Doc. 11.) Petitioner

did not file an opposition. 

On September 11, 2007, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendation that

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED, and be given the opportunity to withdraw the

unexhausted claims in the alternative to dismissal. (Court Doc. 13.)

Apparently in response to the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner filed a motion

for stay and abeyance on October 19, 2007. (Court Doc. 14.) Respondent filed an opposition on

November 1, 2007. (Court Doc. 15.) 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a district court has

Case 1:07-cv-00678-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 12/04/07 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

 Alternatively, as set forth in the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file nothing and the 1

Recommendation will be submitted to the District Judge to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition,

without prejudice. 

2

discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the

state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected

petition. However, the Court noted that, while the procedure should be “available only in limited

circumstances,” it “likely 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, his

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner

engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to exhaust the unexhausted

claims prior to filing the petition in this Court. The fact that Petitioner failed to file an

opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss and now only after a recommendation has been

issued to grant said motion has sought for a stay and abeyance to exhaust state court remedies, 

lends credence to the fact that Petitioner may be attempting to engage in dilatory litigation tactics

and flatly contradicts any claim that he has been diligent in seeking to exhaust state court

remedies as to all of his claims. Consequently, Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance must be

denied. In the interest of justice, the Court will grant Petitioner fifteen (15) days from the date of

service of this order to file objections and/or request to withdraw the unexhausted claims from

the petition. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance is DENIED;

2. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner may, if

desired, file objections and/or request to withdraw the unexhausted claims as set

forth in the Findings and Recommendation of September 11, 2007, in lieu of

dismissal, without prejudice.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00678-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2