Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01535/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01535-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Prison Terms
Respondent
Ronnie McNabb
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

RONNIE McNABB,

Petitioner,

v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01535 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS BE DISMISSED,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUSTION AND DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ABEYANCE

[Docs. 1, 6]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 22, 2007. On

November 5, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Court Doc. 5.) 

On November 15, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to hold the petition in abeyance, and on

December 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause. (Court Docs. 6, 7.) 

In his motion for abeyance, Petitioner requests that the Court hold the petition in

abeyance pending a decision by the California Supreme Court. (Court Doc. 6.) 

Because it is clear that Petitioner has not exhausted the claims in the instant petition, the

instant petition must be dismissed, without prejudice, to re-filing after the claims are exhausted

by the California Supreme Court. In addition, there is no authority for the Court to stay a

petition that contains only unexhausted claims. See Raspberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154

Case 1:07-cv-01535-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 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

(9 Cir. 2006) (district court cannot hold a unexhausted petition in abeyance, instead, it must

th

dismiss the petition, without prejudice for failure to exhaust); see also Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269, 274, 278 (2005) (discussed “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted

claims); Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1173 n.10 (9 Cir. 2005) (same); Jackson v. Roe, 425 th

F.3d 654, 661 (9 Cir. 2005) (same). Accordingly, the Court does not have the power to hold the th

instant unexhausted petition in abeyance, and Petitioner’s motion must be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to hold the petition in abeyance be DENIED; and

2. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED, without prejudice,

for failure to exhaust the state court remedies.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01535-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2