Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00804-0/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

FREDERICK RAY BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

A.P. KANE, WARDEN

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00804 AWI SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION

FOR STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED

[Doc. 3]

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 June 23, 2006. On this

same date, Petitioner also filed a motion to stay the proceedings while he exhausts the state court

remedies with respect to new claims. (Court Doc. 3.) 

In his motion, Petitioner requests “permission to exhaust his new issues presented in a

second petition submitted to the California Supreme Court, Case Number S137701. The issues

will be additional to the first petition submitted to the California Supreme Court, Case Number

S135392.” (Motion, at 1.) Petitioner states that he is relying on Acosta v. Artuz, 235 F.3d 117,

125 (2d Cir. 2000) and Anthony v. Cambra, 235 F.3d 568 (9 Cir. 2000), as the reason for his th

delay in filing this petition. (Id.) 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a

district court has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 8 Filed 07/31/06 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

27

28

2

unexhausted claims to the state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for

review of his perfected petition. Nevertheless, stay and abeyance is available only in limited

circumstances, because the procedure frustrates AEDPA’s objective of encouraging finality by

allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution of federal proceedings and undermines AEDPA’s

goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner’s incentive to exhaust

all his claims in state court prior to filing his federal petition. Id. at 1535. The Supreme Court

held that a stay and abeyance is "only appropriate when the district court determines there was

good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court." Id. 

Petitioner has not provided sufficient factual information for the Court to determine

whether good cause exists to warrant a stay while he exhausts further claims in state court. 

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

cause why the motion for stay should be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00804-SMS Document 8 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2