Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03256/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03256-1/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

EDGAR HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner, No. 2: 10-cv-3256 KJN P

vs.

MIKE McDONALD, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The petition raises one claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, which petitioner

concedes is not exhausted. The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the

granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be

waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver

of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

Case 2:10-cv-03256-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/03/11 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

 It appears from the petition that no claims are exhausted. Petitioner did not file a petition 1

for review in the California Supreme Court after the California Court of Appeal upheld his

conviction on direct appeal. 

2

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all

claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971);

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Petitioner has also filed a motion to stay proceedings so that he may exhaust his

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The undersigned has discretion to stay “mixed” petitions,

i.e. petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, so that a petitioner may exhaust

the unexhausted claims. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2005). The undersigned is

not authorized to stay a petition containing only unexhausted claims.

In the motion to stay, petitioner claims that the petition contains both exhausted

and unexhausted claims. As stated above, the petition raises only the unexhausted ineffective

assistance of counsel claim. For this reason, the motion to stay is denied. 

If petitioner has exhausted claims, he is granted thirty days to file an amended

petition containing his exhausted and unexhausted claims as well as a renewed motion to stay.1

If no amended petition is filed within that time, this action will be dismissed on grounds that the

only claim raised is not exhausted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 6) is granted;

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (Dkt. No. 2) is denied;

////

////

////

////

Case 2:10-cv-03256-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/03/11 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

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

petition containing his exhausted and unexhausted claims as well as a renewed motion to stay; if

petitioner does not file an amended petition and renewed motion to stay, this action will be

dismissed.

DATED: December 30, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

her3256.ord

Case 2:10-cv-03256-KJN Document 7 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 3