Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06304/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06304-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAMELL V. TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE STRATTON, WARDEN,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 04-6304 REC SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION

FOR ABEYANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 13, 2004. On

February 12, 2005, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

dismissed for failure to exhaust the state court remedies. On March 14, 2005, Petitioner filed an

amended petition and motion to hold the action in abeyance. In his motion, Petitioner indicates

that Grounds One and Two were exhausted; however, Grounds Three and Four were not. 

The Supreme Court has recently issued an opinion setting forth the standard and

procedure the district court should utilize when faced with a mixed petition. 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 claims to the state court in the

first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected petition. 

///

Case 1:04-cv-06304-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/06/05 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 1

 AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 

2

Stay and abeyance is available only in limited circumstances, because the procedure

frustrates AEDPA’s1 objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petition 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 is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to

exhaust his claims first in state court. Id. 

In his motion, Petitioner has not shown good cause as to why he did not raise the

unexhausted claims in the state court first. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

Petitioner shall be ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order why the unexhausted claims were not exhausted prior to presenting them to

this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06304-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2