Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00962/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00962-1/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL STEVENSON, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DERRALL G. ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-0962 REC LJO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 

[Doc. #7]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On July 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After conducting a

preliminary review of the petition, on September 6, 2005, the Court issued an order directing

Respondent to file a response to the petition. 

On October 13, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to hold the petition in abeyance and stay the

proceedings while Petitioner returns to state court.

DISCUSSION

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits.

Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534, 2005 WL 711587 (2005); Calderon v. United

Case 1:05-cv-00962-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 10/20/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d

1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court recently

held that this discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1534. In light of AEDPA’s objectives, “stay and abeyance [is]

available only in limited circumstances” and “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. at 1535. 

Even if Petitioner were to demonstrate good cause for that failure, “the district court would abuse its

discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” Id.

In this case, the Court finds no cause to grant a stay. Petitioner fails to identify the claim or

claims he seeks to exhaust, and he provides no reason to excuse his failure to present the unidentified

claims to the state courts prior to bringing the instant petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for

stay of the proceedings is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00962-REC-LJO Document 8 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2