Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00404/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00404-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELL JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0404 GEB EFB P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He filed with his application for a writ of habeas corpus a request to stay these

proceedings and hold them in abeyance while he exhausts available state remedies. On March

14, 2007, the court directed respondent to file a response to this request. On April 11, 2007,

respondent filed a statement of no opposition to petitioner’s request. The court may stay this

action, holding it in abeyance while petitioner pursues unexhausted state remedies with respect

to some claims, as long as he has shown good cause for his failure to exhaust those remedies as

to those claims. Petitioner must also show that the unexhausted claims potentially have merit

and that he has not intentionally engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269, 277-278 (2005). A petitioner’s reasonable confusion about the timeliness of his petitions in

state court ordinarily constitute good cause for filing a “protective petition,” i.e., a petition

Case 2:07-cv-00404-RHW Document 11 Filed 05/15/07 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

containing only exhausted claims, in federal court even though he continues to pursue other

claims in state court. Pace v. Diguglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005). Petitioner asserts that

he filed his habeas petition before exhausting available state remedies because he was unsure

whether his federal petition would be timely if he waited. Respondent agrees that this concern

justifies staying the proceedings and concedes that nothing suggests that petitioner is engaged in

intentionally dilatory tactics. Respondent does not assert that the claims petitioner is exhausting

are wholly lacking in merit.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 28, 2007, request to stay this action and hold it in abeyance

pending his exhaustion of available state remedies is granted.

2. Petitioner shall notify this court of the completion of that process within 45 days of

the date an order resolving his state habeas petition is served.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case.

Dated: May 14, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00404-RHW Document 11 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2