Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01880/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01880-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Katavich
Respondent
Eric Lavelle Nichols
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LAVELLE NICHOLS,

 Petitioner,

v.

JOHN KATAVICH, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01880-LJO-SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION 

FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE, AND 

DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE 

PETITION

Doc. 1

Petitioner Eric Lavelle Nichols is a state prisoner who seeks to proceed with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although he has not yet filed a petition, 

Petitioner has moved for stay and abeyance pending exhaustion of all claims. 

As Petitioner acknowledges, 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 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 v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005). 

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

///

Case 1:14-cv-01880-SMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/14 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

27

28

2

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

has not been dilatory in pursuing the litigation. Id. at 277-78.

A motion for stay and abeyance presupposes that the petitioner has filed a federal petition 

which the Court may stay, however. In this case, Petitioner has not yet filed a federal petition. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner's motion without prejudice to its renewal after 

Petitioner has filed a habeas corpus petition in this case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance to permit exhaustion of 

sentencing claims without prejudice to its renewal after Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in this Court. 

2. Within thirty (30) days of this order, Petitioner is directed to file a completed petition 

indicating the case number shown in the caption of this order (1:14-cv-01880-SMS HC).

3. This case shall remain open pending receipt of Petitioner's completed petition. Upon receipt 

of the completed petition, the Court shall consider Petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance (Doc. 

1) without the necessity of Petitioner's resubmitting the motion. 

4. In the event that Petitioner fails to submit a completed petition within thirty (30) days of this 

order, the Court shall dismiss this case for failure to comply with a court order.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order along with a form of petition for 

writ of habeas corpus (Section 2254) to Petitioner at the address indicated on the case docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01880-SMS Document 4 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 2