Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02249/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02249-6/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

LEO ARCHER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-2249 MCE KJM P 

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, is currently a California detainee

following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity to a charge of grand theft from a person. 

Petitioner has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner asks that this action be stayed pending the exhaustion of state court

remedies with respect to certain claims. Direct review of petitioner’s revocation of outpatient

release is ongoing. Counsel for petitioner also contemplates filing actions for collateral relief in

state court. What is not clear is whether state court remedies have been exhausted with respect to

any claims identified in petitioner’s habeas petition that are at least colorable, not moot, and that

counsel does not intend to abandon. The court cannot stay an action containing no exhausted

claims. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding dismissal of a

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 42 Filed 12/12/06 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

completely unexhausted habeas petition despite the fact that the habeas petitioner asked for a stay

so that he could exhaust).

Good cause appearing, the court will deny petitioner’s request for a stay without

prejudice to refiling within thirty days. In the renewed motion, petitioner must show that he has

exhausted state court remedies with respect to at least one colorable claim asserted in petitioner’s

original application for writ of habeas corpus that petitioner intends to pursue.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s June 22, 2006 motion

for stay is denied without prejudice to re-filing within thirty days of this order.

DATED: December 11, 2006.

1

arch2249.sty

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 42 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2