Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00833/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00833-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Runnels
Respondent
Robert Jonathan White
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JONATHAN WHITE, CASE NO. CV-F-05-0833 AWI WMW HC

Petitioner, 

 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

vs. [Doc. 12]

DAVID RUNNELS, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

 Petitioner states in his petition that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not exhausted

and is now being reviewed by the lower courts. The court must dismiss a petition that contains

unexhausted claims, even if it also contains exhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22,

102 S.Ct. 1198, 1205 (1982); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Gordon), 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc) cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 265 (1997); Guizar v. Estelle, 843 F.2d 371, 372 (9th

Cir.1988) Because this is a mixed petition, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the

Case 1:05-cv-00833-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 11/30/06 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

court must dismiss it.

Accordingly, on August 30, 2006, this court granted Petitioner thirty days to inform the court

whether he seeks to withdraw the unexhausted claims and proceed with those that are exhausted or

withdraw the entire petition and return to state court to exhaust those claims that are unexhausted. 

Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order. Instead, on September 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a

motion to hold this case in abeyance while he exhausts his additional claims in state court. 

A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits.

Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1534, 2005 WL 711587 (2005); Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9 Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, th

1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). As this court previously informed Petitioner, it

cannot consider his petition on the merits because it contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims.

Here, the Court cannot consider Petitioner's request for stay because the petition currently pending

before this Court contains two unexhausted claims. In the prior order, Petitioner was given the option

of withdrawing the unexhausted claims, and proceeding with the exhausted ones. However, Petitioner

has not exercised his option to withdraw the unexhausted claims. Accordingly, as the petition contains

unexhausted claims, Petitioner's request for stay must be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

However, Petitioner is advised that if he withdraws the unexhausted claims, he may renew his

request for stay. Once the petition contains only exhausted claims, the court will be able to consider a

request for stay. See Ford v. Hubbard, 2002 WL 31001146, *4-5, (9th Cir. 2002) In other words,

Petitioner must first withdraw his unexhausted claims, and then renew his request to stay the petition

pending exhaustion at the state level. Failure to withdraw the unexhausted claims will result in the

dismissal of this entire petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00833-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2