Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00275-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Scribner
Respondent
Theodore Floyd Stankewitz
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 Petitioner was advised that he could move to withdraw the unexhausted claims in lieu of dismissal of the 1

entire action. (Court Doc. 6, F&R, at 3.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE FLOYD STANKEWITZ,

Petitioner,

v.

A. SCRIBNER,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0275 OWW DLB HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO STAY CASE

PENDING EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT

REMEDIES

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 March 13, 2006. On May

3, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for

failure to exhaust the state court remedies. (Court Doc. 4.) Petitioner filed a response on May

18, 2006. (Court Doc. 5.) On May 24, 2006, the undersigned issued Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the instant petition be dismissed, without prejudice, as a

“mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. (Court Doc. 6.) On June 1

6, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Court Doc. 7.) In

his objections, Petitioner requests that the Court stay the petition pending exhaustion of the

unexhausted claims in state court. (Court Doc. 7, Objections, at 1.) 

Case 1:06-cv-00275-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 07/24/06 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 AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 2

2

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (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’s objective of encouraging finality by 2

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. at 1535. 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 within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order Petitioner shall show

cause why the unexhausted claims were not exhausted prior to presenting them to this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 22, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00275-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2