Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01923/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01923-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY ALLEN, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1923 FCD DAD P

vs.

MARK SHEPARD, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

In his petition, petitioner contends that some of his claims are unexhausted and

requests that the court hold the petition in abeyance. (Petition at 3.) The court will order

petitioner to file and serve a motion for a stay and abeyance on the Attorney General’s Office.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the district court’s discretion to stay a federal

habeas proceeding to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state court where

there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust all claims in state court before filing a

federal habeas petition. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). See Anthony v. Cambra,

236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000) (authorizing district courts to stay fully exhausted federal

petitions pending exhaustion of other claims); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor),

Case 2:06-cv-01923-FCD-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998). This discretion to issue a stay extends to mixed petitions.

Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Rhines concluded that a district court has

discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner time to return to state court to present

unexhausted claims.”). The Supreme Court cautioned, however, that “stay and abeyance should

be available only in limited circumstances” and that a stay “is only appropriate when the district

court determines there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state

court.” 544 U.S. at 277. Even if a petitioner shows good cause, the district court should not

grant a stay if the unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Id. Finally, federal proceedings may 

not be stayed indefinitely, and reasonable time limits must be imposed on a petitioner’s return to

state court to exhaust additional claims. Id. at 277-78

Petitioner’s request for a stay and abeyance does not provide sufficient facts and

information to satisfy the requirements of Rhines. Accordingly, the court is unable to determine

whether petitioner had good cause for failing to exhaust all of his claims before filing this action,

whether petitioner’s unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious or whether petitioner has

been diligent in pursuing his unexhausted claims. See Taylor, 134 F.3d at 987 nn. 8 & 11

(failure to make a showing of diligence in pursuing additional claims may foreclose a stay). For

these reasons, petitioner’s request will be denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion for a

stay and abeyance.

Petitioner will be granted thirty days to file a his motion to stay proceedings. The

motion submitted for filing must include a proof of service showing that a copy of the motion

was served on respondents’ counsel. The motion must (1) show good cause for petitioner’s

failure to exhaust all claims prior to filing this action, (2) identify petitioner’s unexhausted claims

and demonstrate that each is potentially meritorious, (3) describe the status of state court

proceedings on the unexhausted claims, and (4) demonstrate that petitioner has acted with

diligence in pursuing additional claims. The court will also order respondents to file their 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01923-FCD-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

opposition or non-opposition to petitioner’s motion, and petitioner may file a reply to any

opposition to his motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for a stay and abeyance, submitted in his habeas petition

filed on August 25, 2006, is denied without prejudice;

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, petitioner shall file and serve

a motion for a stay and abeyance as set forth in this order on Michael Patrick Farrell, Senior

Assistant Attorney General;

3. Within thirty days from the service of the motion for a stay and abeyance,

respondents shall file their opposition or non-opposition to the motion; thereafter, petitioner may

file a reply within twenty days after service of the opposition; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael Patrick

Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: September 22, 2006.

DAD:4

alle1923.sty 

Case 2:06-cv-01923-FCD-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 3