Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03822/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03822-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. SMITH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3822 JSW (PR)

ORDER STAYING AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING

HABEAS PETITION, GRANTING

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket no. 11)

Michael J. Smith, California prisoner, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner advised the Court in his amended habeas application

that several claims had not been exhausted in the California Supreme Court. After the

Court provided him with alternatives and advised Petitioner that he must inform the

Court how he intends to proceed on the mixed petition, Petitioner moved for a stay of

this proceeding so that he could exhaust additional claims in state court (docket no. 11).

A district court may stay a petition pending a petitioner’s exhaustion of additional

claims, with the intention of allowing an amendment after exhaustion to add the newly

exhausted claims. See Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005); Kelly v. Small,

315 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134

F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to investigate

issues in his defense and that he was unable to raise the claims earlier. Petitioner has

established good cause for his failure to exhaust these issues earlier and show that the

issues are “potentially meritorious.” Rhines, 125 S. Ct. at 1535. Accordingly,

Case 3:05-cv-03822-JSW Document 12 Filed 05/25/06 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

27

28 2

Petitioner’s request for a stay is GRANTED, subject to the conditions set forth below,

and this action is hereby STAYED until thirty days after the California Supreme Court’s

final decision on Petitioner’s claims.

Once the California Supreme Court has issued a decision on Petitioner’s now

unexhausted claims, Petitioner shall promptly notify the Court. Within thirty days of

such decision, Petitioner may file an amended petition containing all claims, including

the two newly exhausted claims. If Petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C-05-3822 JSW

(PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED PETITION on the first page, and Petitioner

may not incorporate material from the original petition by reference. 

If Petitioner wishes to have this Court consider his now unexhausted claims

in an amended petition, he must properly present these claims to the Supreme

Court of California within thirty days of the date this order is filed, and thereafter

file a second amended petition in this Court within thirty days of the California

Supreme Court’s decision containing all of his claims. If Petitioner fails to do so,

this matter shall proceed on Petitioner’s two previously exhausted claims pending

before the Court and the Court will not consider Petitioner’s other claims.

The clerk shall administratively close the file pending the stay of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2006

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03822-JSW Document 12 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2