Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00921-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tammy L. Campbell
Respondent
Kavon William Cry
Petitioner

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KAVON WILLIAM CRY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

TAMMY L. CAMPBELL, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:24-cv-0921 TLN AC P 

NOTICE TO PRO SE HABEAS 

PETITIONER REGARDING 

EXHAUSTION

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss your petition on the ground that some of your 

claims are unexhausted. ECF No. 15. Federal law requires any habeas claim to be presented first 

to the state courts in order to correct any constitutional error. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); see 

also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982) (explaining why federal habeas petitioners must 

exhaust claim by giving state courts the first opportunity to correct constitutional error); 

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (explaining that exhaustion requires the 

completion of “one complete round” of state court review). 

If you have not yet presented all of your claims to the highest state court, you may request 

the federal court to place your federal habeas petition on hold while you return to state court(s) in 

order to fully exhaust your claim(s). This is referred to as a “stay and abeyance.” Federal law 

provides for two very different types of a stay and abeyance. Any motion you file for a stay 

should specify which type of stay you are seeking. 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00921-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 01/10/25 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 

The first type of a stay is referred to as a “Rhines” stay. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 

269, 278 (2005). The court may stay a habeas petition containing exhausted and non-exhausted 

claims if petitioner demonstrates (1) good cause for the failure to previously exhaust the claims in 

state court, (2) the claims at issue potentially have merit, and (3) petitioner has been diligent in 

pursuing relief. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78; see also Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 910-12 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (extending the Rhines stay and abeyance procedure to federal habeas petitions that are 

wholly unexhausted). You should address all three of these factors if you are requesting a Rhines 

stay. If the court grants your request for a Rhines stay, the entire federal habeas petition including 

the unexhausted claim(s) will be put on hold. It does not require you to file any amended federal 

habeas petition. 

The second type of a stay is referred to as a “Kelly” stay. In Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 

1063 (9th Cir. 2003), a stay and abeyance involves the following three-step process: (1) the 

petitioner amends his petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court stays and holds in 

abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, allowing petitioner the opportunity to return to 

state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and, (3) petitioner later amends his petition and reattaches the newly-exhausted claims to the original petition. This is a more cumbersome 

procedure than a Rhines stay because it requires you to file multiple amended federal habeas 

petitions, but it does not require a petitioner to demonstrate good cause for the failure to exhaust. 

See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). However, a Kelly stay runs the risk of 

preventing review on the merits of any unexhausted claim for relief due to the one-year statute of 

limitations governing federal habeas claims. See King, 564 F.3d at 1140-41 (emphasizing that a 

“petitioner seeking to use the Kelly procedure will be able to amend his unexhausted claims back 

into his federal petition once he has exhausted them only if those claims are determined to be 

timely. Demonstrating timeliness will often be problematic under the now-applicable legal 

principles.”) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(stating that a one year period of 

limitation shall apply to all federal habeas petitions challenging a state court judgment). 

Nothing in this notice prevents you from returning to state court while there is a pending 

motion to dismiss your federal habeas petition based on lack of exhaustion. If the state court 

Case 2:24-cv-00921-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 01/10/25 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 

issues a ruling on your constitutional claim(s) while your federal habeas case is pending, you 

should file a “Notice of Exhaustion” in this court along with a copy of the state court ruling. 

Even if you would like to request a stay of this case under either Rhines or Kelly, you are 

still required to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. If chose to request a stay, you may do 

so either as part of your response to the motion to dismiss or as a separate motion to stay. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Within thirty days of the service of this order, petitioner shall file a response to 

respondent’s motion to dismiss. Failure to do so may result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed. 

2. Within thirty days of the service of this order, petitioner may file a motion for stay 

under Rhines or Kelly, as set forth above. 

DATED: January 8, 2025 

Case 2:24-cv-00921-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 3