Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00836-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adams
Respondent
Kim Allen La Chappelle
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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIM ALLEN LA CHAPPELLE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0836 GEB GGH P

vs.

ADAMS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must

be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, 1

thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before

presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S. Ct. 509, 512

(1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Case 2:07-cv-00836-JLR Document 4 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Petitioner admits that not all of the claims raised in the petition are exhausted. 

Apparently petitioner is still exhausting some of his claims in state habeas petitions. Petitioner

states that he filed the instant action because he is concerned that the statute of limitations may

have run.

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the Supreme Court held

that courts may stay mixed petitions while a petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims in state

court only when 1) good cause exists for petitioner’s failure to exhaust; 2) petitioner’s

unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless”; and 3) there is no indication that petitioner

engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” 544 U.S. at 277-278, 125 S.Ct. 1528. 

Pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, petitioner is ordered to file further briefing addressing whether

good cause exists for his failure to exhaust state court remedies prior to filing this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of

this order, petitioner shall file the further briefing discussed above.

DATED: 7/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

lach0836.100fee

Case 2:07-cv-00836-JLR Document 4 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2