Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04851/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04851-0/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 explains that he has included the unexhausted claims in the petition

to put Respondent on notice of these claims for purposes of later amending the petition

should the state courts not resolve the unexhausted claims in his favor and for the purpose

relating those claims back to the filing date of the instant petition. (App. at 4 n.1.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO COVIAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, in her capacity of the

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-04851 JSW

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE

ON APPLICATION TO HOLD

FEDERAL HABEAS PETITION IN

ABEYANCE PENDING

EXHAUSTION OF

POTENTIALLY DISPOSITIVE

CLAIMS IN STATE COURT

On November 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner

concedes that the petition, as currently drafted, is a “mixed” petition containing exhausted and

unexhausted claims.1 Petitioner simultaneously filed an application to hold his federal petition

in abeyance pending exhaustion of potentially dispositive claims in state court. See Rhines v.

Weber, __ U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005) (holding that a court has discretion to use “stay

and abeyance” procedure when presented with mixed petitions, subject to demonstration of

good cause for failing to exhaust and potentially meritorious claims, and where federal court

imposes time limitations on seeking state exhaustion and noting that “it would likely be an

abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay” where petitioner meets this standard).

The Court has considered the application and requires a response from Respondent. 

Case 3:05-cv-04851-JSW Document 3 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner shall serve a copy of this

Order on Respondent by December 9, 2005. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Respondent’s response to the application for a

stay, shall be due fourteen (14) days after service of this Order. Petitioner may file a reply

within five (5) days after service of Respondent’s response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04851-JSW Document 3 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2