Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01960/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01960-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Ivan Ray Carter
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN RAY CARTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1960 WBS KJM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, 

 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis and a request for the court to stay the action to allow petitioner to exhaust his state

remedies.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized the

district court’s authority to stay a mixed petition if it finds good cause for petitioner’s failure to

exhaust earlier and merit to the claims petitioner is seeking to exhaust. 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01960-WBS -KJM Document 6 Filed 10/15/07 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

1

 The docket for In re Carter, S156377, shows that the petition was filed in that court on

September 17, 2007, the same date the instant petition was filed in the Fresno Division of this Court.

2

Petitioner has attached a copy of the petition he filed in the California Supreme

Court, in which he attributes his delay in raising the claims to appellate counsel’s refusal to

include the arguments in the brief on appeal. In this request for a stay, however, petitioner has

not explained why he waited over a year from the denial of his petition for review to file his state

habeas in the California Supreme Court.1

 His conclusory statement that he has not been dilatory

in moving to exhaust his state remedies is belied by the state court records and his conclusory

representation, that his failure to exhaust earlier is the result of confusion about the timeliness of

habeas proceedings, is not further explained. 

Petitioner concedes that the instant petition is mixed. He has two alternatives: he

may file a petition containing only exhausted claims or he may renew his request for a stay. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is directed to file an amended habeas petition containing only

exhausted claims or a renewed motion for a stay within thirty days from the date of this order;

and

2. Petitioner’s September 17, 2007 request for a stay is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: October 12, 2007. 

2

cart1960.sty

Case 2:07-cv-01960-WBS -KJM Document 6 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 2