Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00986-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD McDOWELL,

Petitioner, No. CIV-05-0986 DFL KJM P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 29, 2005, this court granted petitioner thirty days in which to file a

request that the proceeding be stayed while petitioner returns to state court to exhaust one of his

claims. Petitioner has now filed the request. 

Petitioner argues he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel when his

lawyer did not present witnesses who would testify that the narcotics petitioner was convicted of

possessing were not his. 

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005), the Supreme

Court recognized the district court’s authority to stay a mixed petition if it finds good cause for

petitioner’s failure to exhaust earlier and merit to the claims petitioner is seeking to exhaust. 

Case 2:05-cv-00986-RRB -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/02/06 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

2

Petitioner alleges he was unaware of the availability of such testimony until just prior to filing the

petition in this case. This satisfies the Rhines good cause requirement. Moreover, the court

cannot find that petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is plainly meritless. A stay

is appropriate. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:.

1. Petitioner’s January 25, 2006 motion for a stay of these proceedings is granted.

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file his state

exhaustion petition. 

3. Within ninety days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a status report

on the progress of the state exhaustion petition.

4. If the state exhaustion proceeding is not completed within one hundred eighty

days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file a second status report, and further reports at

ninety day intervals until the exhaustion process is completed.

5. Within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s resolution of the state

action, petitioner shall file a motion to lift the stay together with either a motion to dismiss the

action or a statement that the petition filed May 18, 2005 is now fully exhausted.

6. Petitioner is advised his failure to comply with the time limits of this order

may result in an order from the court lifting the stay.

DATED: April 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 /mcdo.0986.sty

Case 2:05-cv-00986-RRB -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2