Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07140/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07140-0/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

27

28

1

Petitioner was also advised that he may be able to seek a stay of these

proceedings if he can show that there was good cause for his failure to exhaust

his unexhausted claims in state court, and that the claims are potentially

meritorious. See Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL IAN BROWN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

IVAN D. CLAY, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7140 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Per order filed on March 19, 2008, the court granted respondent's motion

to dismiss on the ground that petitioner did not exhaust state judicial remedies as

to 22 of the 41 claims in the First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("FAP"). Pursuant to the law of the circuit, the court

gave petitioner the option of either withdrawing his unexhausted claims and

proceeding only on his exhausted claims, or of dismissing the entire mixed

petition and returning to federal court with a new petition once all claims are

exhausted.1

 

Case 3:06-cv-07140-CRB Document 27 Filed 04/16/08 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 has responded that he wishes "to drop the unexhausted claims

and proceed with the exhausted claims." Good cause appearing therefor, the 22

unexhausted claims in the FAP are STRICKEN and the court's prior order to

show cause is reinstated as to the remaining 19 claims.

Within 60 days of the issuance of this order, respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas

corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on

petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed

previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt

of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 16, 2008 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.06\Brown, D.or6.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-07140-CRB Document 27 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2