Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01648/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01648-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Green
Petitioner
Daniel Paramo
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN GREEN,

 Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01648-LJO-SMS HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

STAY AND ABEYANCE

Doc. 10

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, who filed his petition in this Court on October 22, 2014, 

now seeks an order of stay and abeyance, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005), 

to permit him to pursue additional, but unspecified, claims in state court. Because the motion lacks 

the factual specificity necessary to permit the Court to analyze the propriety of granting stay and 

abeyance, the Court must deny the motion.

I. DISCUSSION

A federal district court may not address a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the 

petitioner has exhausted state remedies with respect to each claim raised. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 

509, 515 (1982). A petition is fully exhausted when the highest state court has had a full and fair 

Case 1:14-cv-01648-LJO-SMS Document 14 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 3
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

opportunity to consider all claims before the petitioner presents them to the federal court. Picard v. 

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). "[P]etitioners who come to federal courts with 'mixed' petitions 

run the risk of forever losing their opportunity for federal review of the unexhausted claims. 

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 275. 

Federal district courts should stay mixed petitions only in limited circumstances. Id. at 277. 

A district court may stay a mixed petition if (1) the petitioner demonstrates good cause for failing to 

have first exhausted all claims in state court; (2) the claims potentially have merit; and (3) the 

petitioner has not been dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Id. at 277-78. Petitioner has failed to 

establish any of these three elements.

A. Failure to Specify Unexhausted Claims

Petitioner's failure to indicate the additional unexhausted claims that he seeks to pursue 

precludes the issuance of stay and abeyance for two reasons. First, without knowing the claims that 

Petitioner seeks to pursue, the Court cannot determine whether those claims potentially have merit.

Second, "a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf 

of a prisoner in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(a). Because Petitioner does not allege the claims for which he seeks an order of stay and 

abeyance, the Court is unable to determine whether any of the additional claims constitute a 

violation of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws or treaties. When a petition includes no mention 

of any federal grounds, a district court may appropriately dismiss it. Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F.Supp. 

190, 193 (D.Nev. 1993). 

B. Failure to Allege Good Cause With Specificity

Although Petitioner acknowledges the necessity to allege good cause under Rhines, he 

merely refers vaguely to "extenuating circumstances," without specifically advising the Court of 

Case 1:14-cv-01648-LJO-SMS Document 14 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

what those circumstances are. In the absence of specific factual allegations, the Court cannot 

determine that good cause exists for Petitioner's failure to exhaust the additional claims.

C. Pursuit of Litigation

The motion is completely silent on the question of Petitioner's diligent pursuit of the 

litigation necessary to exhaust the additional claims.

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner's having alleged no factual basis to establish the elements necessary for an order 

of stay and abeyance, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for stay and abeyance without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01648-LJO-SMS Document 14 Filed 12/03/14 Page 3 of 3