Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02446/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02446-5/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

DONALD ROY MILLER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2446 DFL KJM P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

habeas corpus. On February 27, 2006, this court filed findings and recommendations

recommending that the petition be dismissed because it contained a mix of exhausted and

unexhausted claims. The district court adopted these findings and recommendations in its order

filed March 30, 2006 and directed petitioner to file an amended petition. 

Petitioner has now filed a new petition containing five claims, all of which he

raised previously in the California Supreme Court. However, as noted in the findings and

recommendations of February 27, 2006, although the claims relating to the jury instructions on

simple possession of drugs and the equal protection challenge to a sentencing enhancement were

included in the petition for review filed on petitioner’s behalf in the state Supreme Court, these

claims did not refer to any federal case law or federal constitutional provisions. These claims are

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 30 Filed 05/23/06 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

not exhausted. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (“a claim for relief in habeas

corpus must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a

statement of the facts which entitle the petitioner to relief”). Moreover, even though petitioner

claims to have included a request for a stay to permit him to exhaust various claims, this is not

part of the petition before the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner file a motion for a stay

that complies with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005), or file a second

amended petition that contains only the exhausted claims, which are claims one, three and five of

the current petition; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a form for a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus. 

DATED: May 22, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

mill2446.mix

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 30 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2