Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01316-0/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

 A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a petition for

writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is

based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged

constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO PRADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1316 AWI SMS HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED

[Doc. 1]

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 19, 2005. 

Petitioner raises the following three claims for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel;

(2) due process violation by the prosecution’s intimidation of a defense witness resulting in her

unavailability; and (3) use of false evidence. 

Petitioner indicates that he filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 19,

2005, in the Tulare County Superior Court raising the instant claims, and the petition is still

pending at that court. Petitioner requests that the Court stay the instant petition pending

exhaustion of these claims at the state court level.1

Case 1:05-cv-01316-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 12/19/05 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

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair

opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92

S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971).

2AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

2

In Rhines v. Weber, 2005 WL 711587 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a district court

has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to

the state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected

petition. 

Nevertheless, stay and abeyance is available only in limited circumstances, because the

procedure frustrates AEDPA’s2 objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay

the resolution of federal proceedings and undermines AEDPA’s goal of streamlining federal

habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner’s incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court

prior to filing his federal petition. Id. The Supreme Court held that a stay and abeyance is “only

appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to

exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated “good cause” as to why the unexhausted claims were not

raised in the state court prior to filing the instant petition. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

cause for his failure to raise the unexhausted claims in the state court; and

2. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the

instant petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust the state court remedies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01316-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2