Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01683/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01683-3/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

WILLIAM ADAM KRISKE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1683 JAM DAD P

vs.

WARDEN EVANS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 14, 2008, respondent filed an answer to the petition. Therein,

respondent argues, inter alia, that ground five of the federal habeas petition pending before the

court is unexhausted because petitioner never presented that claim to the California Supreme

Court. Respondent also argues that, in any event, ground five of the petition lacks merit. In

response to the answer, petitioner filed several motions, including a motion for a stay and

abeyance. Petitioner also filed a traverse. 

On December 8, 2009, the court denied petitioner’s motion for a stay and

abeyance without prejudice. The court was unable to determine from petitioner’s one-page

motion whether he had good cause for not exhausting ground five of his petition, whether his

Case 2:08-cv-01683-JAM-DAD Document 29 Filed 01/29/10 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

unexhausted claim is potentially meritorious, or whether he has been diligent in pursuing his

unexhausted claim. The court also granted petitioner leave to file a renewed motion for a stay

and abeyance within thirty days. In response to the court’s order, petitioner has filed a motion to

withdraw ground five of his petition. Petitioner has informed the court that he would like to

proceed on the other four grounds of his petition, all of which have been exhausted in state court. 

In this case, neither party disputes that ground five of the pending petition is

unexhausted. It is well established that a federal court cannot grant habeas relief based on a

“mixed petition.” See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273-74 (2005). Accordingly, the court

will grant petitioner’s motion to withdraw ground five of his petition, and this matter will be

deemed submitted for decision. Petitioner is advised that as long as he keeps the court informed

of any change of address, no further action on his part is necessary. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 15, 2010 motion to withdraw ground five of his petition

(Doc. No. 28) is granted;

2. Ground five of the pending petition is deemed withdrawn; and

3. This matter is now submitted for decision.

DATED: January 29, 2010.

DAD:9

kris1683.subm

Case 2:08-cv-01683-JAM-DAD Document 29 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2