Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02228/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02228-0/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

18cv2228 BEN (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANS ANTONE PETERSEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2228 BEN (MDD)

NOTICE REGARDING POSSIBLE 

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE 

COURT REMEDIES

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, has filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently exhausting claims three 

through eight. (See Pet. at 4-7.) “Mixed petitions” are those that contain both exhausted 

and unexhausted claims and must generally be dismissed. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 

522 (1982). However, the Ninth Circuit has held that, under Rose, that it is error to 

dismiss a mixed petition without giving the petitioner options. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 

1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court notifies Petitioner of the possible 

dismissal of his petition and provides the following options:

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02228-BEN-MSB Document 2 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv2228 BEN (MDD)

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

PETITIONER’S OPTIONS

To avoid the Court dismissing the petition on its own accord, Petitioner may 

choose one of the following options.

i) First Option: File a Motion to Stay the Federal Proceedings

Petitioner may file a motion to stay this federal proceeding while he exhausts his 

unexhausted claims. There are two methods available to Petitioner, the “stay and 

abeyance” procedure and the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure.

If Petitioner wishes to use the “stay and abeyance” procedure he should ask the 

Court to stay his mixed petition while he returns to state court to exhaust. Under this 

procedure he must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which he wishes to 

exhaust, that he is diligently pursuing his state court remedies with respect to those 

claims and that good cause exists for his failure to timely exhaust his state court 

remedies. Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

If Petitioner wishes to use the “withdrawal and abeyance” procedure, he must 

voluntarily withdraw his unexhausted claims, ask the Court to stay the proceedings and 

hold the fully-exhausted petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust, 

and then seek permission to amend his petition to include the newly exhausted claims

after exhaustion is complete. King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Although under this procedure Petitioner is not required to demonstrate good cause for 

his failure to timely exhaust, the newly exhausted claims must be either timely under the 

statute of limitations or “relate back” to the claims in the fully-exhausted petition, that is, 

they must share a “common core of operative facts” with the previously exhausted 

claims. Id. at 1142-43, quoting Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644. 659 (2005).

If Petitioner chooses this option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later 

than November 15, 2018. Respondent may file a reply by December 17, 2018. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02228-BEN-MSB Document 2 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv2228 BEN (MDD)

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

ii) Second Option: Demonstrate Exhaustion

Petitioner may file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has 

exhausted the unexhausted claims. If Petitioner chooses this option, his papers are due 

no later than November 15, 2018. Respondent may file a reply by December 17, 2018.

iii) Third Option: Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition

Petitioner may move to voluntarily dismiss his entire federal petition and return to 

state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Petitioner may then file a new federal 

petition containing only exhausted claims. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating 

that a petitioner who files a mixed petition may dismiss his petition to “return[] to state 

court to exhaust his claims”). If Petitioner chooses this second option, he must file a 

pleading with this Court no later than November 15, 2018. Respondent may file a 

reply by December 17, 2018. 

Petitioner is cautioned that any new federal petition must be filed before expiration 

of the one-year statute of limitations. Ordinarily, a petitioner has one year from when his 

conviction became final to file his federal petition, unless he can show that statutory or 

equitable “tolling” applies. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d). The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas 

corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 

1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an 

application is ‘properly filed’ when its delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court 

officer for placement into the record] are in compliance with the applicable laws and 

rules governing filings.”); Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding 

that a state application for post-conviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as 

untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” while it was under consideration by 

the state court, and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 

993. However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations continues to 

run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-82.

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02228-BEN-MSB Document 2 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv2228 BEN (MDD)

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

iv) Fourth Option: Formally Abandon Unexhausted Claim(s)

Petitioner may formally abandon his unexhausted claims and proceed with his 

exhausted ones. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510, 520-21 (stating that a petitioner who files a 

mixed petition may “resubmit[] the habeas petition to present only exhausted claims”). If 

Petitioner chooses this third option, he must file a pleading with this Court no later than

November 15, 2018. Respondent may file a reply by December 17, 2018.

Petitioner is cautioned that once he abandons his unexhausted claim(s), he may 

lose the ability to ever raise it/them in federal court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 488 (2000) (stating that a court’s ruling on the merits of claims presented in a first

§ 2254 petition renders any later petition successive); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a)-(b). 

CONCLUSION

The Court NOTIFIES PETITIONER THAT HE HAS FILED A PETITION 

THAT CONTAINS BOTH EXHAUSTED AND UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS AND 

IT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL. If Petitioner fails to respond to this 

Order, the Court will recommend to the District Judge assigned to this case that the 

Petition be dismissed without prejudice. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02228-BEN-MSB Document 2 Filed 10/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4