Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01873/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01873-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME TAPIA SERVIN,

Petitioner,

v.

CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-01873-VC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

This is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by 

California inmate Jaime Tapia Servin. On August 13, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition 

with leave to amend because Servin had not alleged a violation of the Constitution or laws of the 

United States and because he had not exhausted any claims. The Court granted Servin 

permission to file an amended complaint with a motion for a stay and abey under Rhines v. 

Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), with instructions about how to do so. On September 9, 2019, 

Servin filed a motion for a stay, but it did not meet the requirements set forth in Rhines. The 

Court denied the motion without prejudice so that Servin could correct the noted deficiencies. 

On October 21, 2019, Servin filed an amended petition with a motion to stay and abey, 

but again he did not meet the Rhines requirements. On December 19, 2019, the Court dismissed 

the second motion to stay and abey with instructions about how to correct the deficiencies. The 

Court stated that, if Servin did not file a third motion for a stay and abey within 28 days from the 

date of the Order, the petition would be dismissed without prejudice to Servin filing a new 

petition in the future with only exhausted federal claims.

The 28-day deadline has passed and Servin has not filed another motion or 

Case 3:19-cv-01873-VC Document 15 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 2
2

communicated with the Court. Therefore, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to Servin 

filing a new petition in the future with exhausted federal claims. 

CONCLUSION

The petition is dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in which “jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” 

Slack v. McDaniel 529 U.S. 472, 484 (2000). The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment and 

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2020

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01873-VC Document 15 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2