Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00833/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00833-5/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

ROBERT JONATHAN WHITE, CASE NO. CV-F-05-0833 AWI WMW HC

Petitioner, 

 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RENEW 

 REQUEST FOR STAY

vs. [Doc. 14]

DAVID RUNNELS, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

 On November 30, 2006, the court entered an order denying Petitioner’s motion, filed September

15, 2006, to hold this case in abeyance while he exhausts his additional claims in state court.

Specifically, the court denied Petitioner’s request for a stay without prejudice because the petition

contained unexhausted claims. The court informed Petitioner as follows:

However, Petitioner is advised that if he withdraws the unexhausted claims, he may

renew his request for stay. Once the petition contains only exhausted claims, the court will be

able to consider a request for stay. See Ford v. Hubbard, 2002 WL 31001146, *4-5, (9th Cir.

Case 1:05-cv-00833-LJO -WMW Document 15 Filed 01/03/07 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

2

2002) In other words, Petitioner must first withdraw his unexhausted claims, and then renew

his request to stay the petition pending exhaustion at the state level. Failure to withdraw the

unexhausted claims will result in the dismissal of this entire petition.

On December 21, 2006, Petitioner made a motion to “renew” his request for a stay. Petitioner

states in part, “Petitioner has ‘Withdrawn’ his unexhausted claims from his June 20, 2005 Filed Habeas

Corpus Petition.” He explains that he seeks a stay in this action in order to exhaust his unexhausted

claims and file a second amended petition in this court. 

Contrary to what he claims in his motion, Petitioner has not withdrawn his unexhausted claims.

Petitioner, in fact, has filed nothing with this court since the court entered its previous order on

November 30, 2006. Petitioner’s petition therefore still contains unexhausted claims and this court

cannot stay the action. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to renew his request for a stay of this action is HEREBY

DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00833-LJO -WMW Document 15 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2