Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06254/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06254-0/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO TORRES, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6254 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

vs. TO FILE TRAVERSE

EDWARD ALAMEDA, JR., Warden, [Doc. 24]

Respondent. ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

 / [Doc. 25]

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

This action is proceeding on the second amended petition filed on September 9, 2005.

Respondent filed an answer on June 6, 2005. On June 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for an

extension of time to file a traverse. On this same date, Petitioner wrote a letter to the Court requesting

that the Court stay the action pending exhaustion at the state court level. 

Good cause having been demonstrated Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a

traverse is GRANTED.

Petitioner is advised that in Rhines v. Weber, 2005 WL 711587 (2005), the Supreme Court held

that a district court has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted

///

Case 1:04-cv-06254-OWW -DLB Document 26 Filed 07/08/05 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 1AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

2

claims to the state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected

petition. 

Nevertheless, stay and abeyance is available onlyin limited circumstances,because the procedure

frustrates AEDPA’s1 objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution

of federal proceedings and undermines AEDPA’s goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by

decreasing a petitioner’s incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court prior to filing his federal

petition.Id. The Supreme Court held that a stay and abeyance 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.

To the extent Petitioner wishes the Court to stay the instant petition pending exhaustion, he must

demonstrate good cause for failing to raise the claims in state court prior to filing the instant petition.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a traverse is GRANTED and within

thirty days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall file a traverse; and

2. Alternatively, to the extent Petitioner seeks to hold this action in abeyance pending

exhaustion, within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06254-OWW -DLB Document 26 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2