Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00064/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00064-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Martin
Respondent
Rusty D. Scott
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

RUSTY D. SCOTT,

Petitioner,

 v.

J. MARTIN, Associate Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-0064 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation Camp in Acton,

California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a judgment of conviction from the Superior Court of the State of California in

and for the County of Santa Clara.

Per order filed on April 15, 2005, the court found that petitioner’s claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel appeared colorable under § 2254 and ordered respondent to

show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

The respondent has filed an answer and petitioner has filed a traverse; however, a

careful review of the record makes clear that one of petitioner’s claims has not been

exhausted. Petitioner has not provided the Supreme Court of California with a fair

opportunity to rule on his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the fact

that he was charged and convicted of corporal injury on a spouse, a crime reserved for

Case 3:05-cv-00064-CRB Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0064\Order 1.wpd 2

married and cohabitating adults, despite the fact that he was never legally married to, nor

cohabitating with, the alleged victim.

When faced with a mixed petition, as is the case here, the district court must give the

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. See Jefferson v. Budge, 419 F.3d 1013,

1016 (9th Cir. 2005); Olvera v Giurbino, 371 F.3d 569, 573 (9th Cir. 2004). Alternatively,

petitioner 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 claim in state court, and that the claim is

potentially meritorious. See Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1534-35 (2005).

Within 20 days of this order, petitioner shall inform the court in writing whether he

wishes to (1) withdraw his unexhausted claims and proceed only on his exhausted claims, (2)

dismiss the entire mixed petition and return to federal court with a new petition once all

claims are exhausted, or (3) seek a stay of the proceedings under Rhines.

Failure to respond within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the entire

mixed petition without prejudice to filing a new federal petition containing only exhausted

claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00064-CRB Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2