Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04023/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL EDDIE BLAND, II,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-04023 TEH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST

FOR STAY

(Docket No. 8)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in

Crescent City, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his state conviction. After an

initial review, the Court found that petitioner had not exhausted four of his claims in

the state high court. The Court ordered petitioner to make an election between three

options: 1) dismiss the unexhausted claims and proceed with only the exhausted

claims; 2) terminate the action to complete exhaustion in state court before filing a

new federal petition; or 3) request a stay of the proceedings while he completes

exhaustion of his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner

elected the third option - to stay the proceedings. 

Good cause appearing, see Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005)

Case 3:07-cv-04023-TEH Document 10 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

(finding district courts have authority to stay federal habeas petition, and AEDPA

does not deprive them of that authority), the election to stay the proceedings (Docket

No. 8) is GRANTED, and the above-titled action is hereby STAYED until petitioner

files a motion to reopen as described below. 

In his notice filed April 16, 2008, petitioner stated that he filed his

unexhausted claims with the state high court on March 13, 2008. Petitioner is

reminded that within thirty days of the California Supreme Court’s decision, he must

file a motion to reopen this action. Furthermore, if petitioner wishes to have this

Court consider his claims, he must file an AMENDED PETITION at the same time

as the above-described motion to reopen this action. The amended petition must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order, No. C 07-04023 TEH

(PR), and must include the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

 In the amended petition, petitioner must include all the claims he wishes to 

present, including both the newly exhausted claims and the cognizable claims from

the original petition. If petitioner simply files a motion to reopen this action, but

does not concurrently file an amended petition in compliance with the

instructions set forth herein, this action will proceed only on the basis of the

exhausted claims in the original petition.

The clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the file pending the stay of

this action. 

DATED: April 22, 2008 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-04023-TEH Document 10 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 2