Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00045/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00045-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Warren Gerrue
Petitioner
Kim Holland
Respondent

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN GERRUE,

Petitioner,

v.

KIM HOLLAND,

Respondent.

No. 2: 15-cv-0045 WBS KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 8, 2015, the Fresno Division of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California transferred this action to this 

court. (ECF No. 7.) 

In the petition, petitioner requests that this action be stayed while his “state appeals are 

still going.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002) provides that a 

district court may stay a petition containing only exhausted claims and hold it in abeyance 

pending exhaustion of additional claims which may then be added to the petition through 

amendment. Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070–71; King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). If 

a petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, a petitioner seeking a stay under Kelly

must dismiss the unexhausted claims from the petition and seek to add them back in through 

amendment after exhausting them in state court. King, 564 F.3d at 1138–39. The previously 

Case 2:15-cv-00045-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 01/22/15 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

unexhausted claims, once exhausted, must be added back into the federal petition within the 

statute of limitations provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), however. King, 564 F.3d at 1140–

41. Under that section, a one-year limitation period for seeking federal habeas relief begins to run 

from the latest of the date the judgment became final on direct review, the date on which a statecreated impediment to filing is removed, the date the United States Supreme Court makes a new 

rule retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review or the date on which the factual 

predicate of a claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(d)(1). A federal habeas petition does not toll the limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d)(2). Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001).

Under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), a district court may stay a mixed petition in 

its entirety, without requiring dismissal of the unexhausted claims while the petitioner attempts to 

exhaust them in state court. King, 564 F.3d at 1139–40. Unlike the Kelly procedure, however, 

Rhines requires that the petitioner show good cause for failing to exhaust the claims in state court 

prior to filing the federal petition. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277–78; King, 564 F.3d at 1139. In 

addition, a stay pursuant to Rhines is inappropriate where the unexhausted claims are “plainly 

meritless” or where the petitioner has engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” 

Id.

Petitioner is directed to file a motion to stay. In this motion, petitioner must indicate 

whether he is seeking a stay pursuant to the procedures outlined in Kelly or Rhines.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order, 

petitioner shall file a motion to stay this action; failure to file a motion to stay will result in a 

recommendation of dismissal of this action.

Dated: January 22, 2015

Ger45.ord

Case 2:15-cv-00045-WBS-KJN Document 12 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 2