Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684-12/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BENYAMINI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

TERESA SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-00684 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY STAY SHOULD NOT

BE VACATED

[Doc. #39]

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Christopher J. Cannon. Esq.

On July 18, 2006, Petitioner filed a first amended petition. Shortly thereafter on July 20,

2007, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the petition pending exhaustion of state remedies with respect

to certain unexhausted claims presented in the amended petition. On July 27, 2007, the Court found

good cause to stay the mixed petition and issued a stay pending exhaustion. Petitioner was directed

to file status reports every 90 days and was granted 30 days following the final order of the state

courts in which to file a final status report. 

On May 25, 2007, Petitioner filed a fourth status report with the Court. In it, Petitioner

acknowledged having filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court in order to exhaust the

issues raised in the supplemental petition. Petitioner further states that “[o]n February 21, 2007, the

California Supreme Court denied that petition.” As stated above, Petitioner was granted 30 days

following the final order of the state courts in which to file a final status report. The instant status

report is more than 2 months overdue and is in direct violation of the Court’s order. 

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 47 Filed 06/19/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005), the Supreme Court stated, “[D]istrict courts

should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and back.” As an example, the

Supreme Court quoted Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 381 (2d Cir.2001), as follows:

[District courts] should explicitly condition the stay on the prisoner's pursuing state court

remedies within a brief interval, normally 30 days, after the stay is entered and returning to

federal court within a similarly brief interval, normally 30 days after state court exhaustion is

completed”).

“And if a petitioner engages in abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay, the district court

should not grant him a stay at all.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278, citing Zarvela, 254 F.3d at 380-81.

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days of the date

of service of this order why the stay granted on July 27, 2007, should not be vacated in its entirety

for failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 18, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 47 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2