Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02190/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02190-0/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-02190 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

State prisoner Eric Alvarado, through counsel, filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus

on March 27, 2006. The petition stated that he had a pending habeas petition before the state

Superior Court. That state petition concerned the same four issues on which he seeks relief

from this Court. Those claims apparently have not been otherwise presented to a state court. 

Petitioner therefore appears not to have exhausted his state-court remedies. 

The petition includes the notation that “[t]his petition is filed pursuant to Pace v.

DiGuglielmo (2005) 544 U.S. ____.” Pace held that the one-year deadline for filing federal

habeas petitions is not tolled by pending state habeas proceedings if that state postconviction

petition ultimately is rejected as untimely. If a state petitioner fears such an outcome, he may

file a “‘protective’ petition in federal court and ask[] the federal court to stay and abey the

federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted.” In certain cases, such a request

to stay a petition with unexhausted claims should be granted. 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807,

Case 3:06-cv-02190-WHA Document 2 Filed 03/29/06 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

1810, 1813–14 (2005) (no U.S. Reports pincites). Perhaps petitioner seeks to follow this

procedure. He has not done so, however, because there is no request for stay or abeyance. 

Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE

SUMMARILY DISMISSED because he did not exhaust his state remedies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02190-WHA Document 2 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2