Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01316-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Prado
Plaintiff
Jeanne Woodford
Defendant

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

ALEJANDRO PRADO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01316-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

PETITION (Docs. 6 & 7)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that Petitioner's motion to stay be DENIED, and the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED, without prejudice,

for failure to exhaust the state court remedies. These Findings

and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On March 14, 2006, and March

21, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Case 1:05-cv-01316-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

In his objections Petitioner argues, as he did before the

Magistrate Judge, that the court should stay this action and hold

the petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of Petitioner's claims

in state court. The United States Supreme Court recently held

that district courts have authority to stay mixed petitions to

allow for exhaustion. Rhines v. Webber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535

(2005). However, such stays can only be granted upon a showing of

good cause for petitioner's failure to exhaust the issues before

filing the federal petition, and a showing that the issues which

the petitioner proposes to exhaust are "potentially meritorious." 

Id.

[I]t likely would be an abuse of discretion for a

district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed

petition if the petitioner had good cause for his failure

to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially

meritorious, and there is no indication that the

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation

tactics.... and there is no indication that the

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation

tactics.

Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1535. 

Petitioner claims that he meets the requirements set forth in

Rhines for staying a petition. The problem for Petitioner is that

the pending petition is not a mixed petition, i.e. one that

Case 1:05-cv-01316-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

contains exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rather, the petition

contains only unexhausted claims. Petitioner does not cite, and

this court was unable to find, any court that has applied the

Rhines' stay and abeyance procedure to a petition containing only

unexhausted claims. When discussing Rhines, the Ninth Circuit has

stated that Rhines applies to stays of mixed petitions and Rhines

allows the to stay mixed petitions rather than dismiss them. See

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

v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005). Given the absence of

authority for the proposition that the court may stay a petition

containing only unexhausted claims and Rhines' and its progeny's

use of the term "mixed petition", the court does not find that it

has the power to stay and hold in abeyance a petition that is not a

mixed petition but rather contains only unexhausted claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 8, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Petitioner's motion to stay is DENIED; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED,

without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the state court remedies;

and,

4. The Clerk of Court enter judgment and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01316-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 3