Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02417/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02417-4/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)

---

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

THOMAS F. RISELEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2417 DFL JFM P

vs.

WARDEN, PLEASANT

VALLEY STATE PRISON,

 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 24, 2005, petitioner was ordered to file a

motion to stay or file an amended petition within thirty days. On November 21, 2005, plaintiff

filed a request to stay the instant action pending exhaustion of state remedies, noting that he has

petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review this court’s decision that

petitioner’s claims are not exhausted. However, plaintiff’s filing was not a motion, did not

contain a declaration, and fails to set forth good cause for his failure to exhaust his claims earlier. 

By order filed April 25, 2005, plaintiff was advised that in his motion to stay, petitioner must

also demonstrate that good cause existed for his failure to exhaust his sixth and seventh claims at

the same time he exhausted his other claims. “Because granting a stay effectively excuses a

petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 30 Filed 02/06/06 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

appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to

exhaust his claims first in state court.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535

(2005). Such a stay is appropriate when petitioner shows good cause for his failure to exhaust

earlier and merit to the claims he is seeking to exhaust. Id., at 1535. Petitioner’s filing does not

demonstrate such good cause.

In an abundance of caution, petitioner will be provided one final opportunity in

which to file a motion that complies with the requirements of Rhines, supra. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s November 21, 2005 request for stay is denied without prejudice; 

2. Within twenty days from the date of this order, petitioner shall file a motion to

stay these proceedings; said motion shall be briefed according to Local Rule 78-230(m) and shall

address the question of petitioner’s good cause for his failure to earlier exhaust his claims

pursuant to Rhines, supra.

DATED: February 6, 2006. 

/001

rise2417.mts 

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 30 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2