Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00064/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00064-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Martin
Respondent
Rusty D. Scott
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSTY D. SCOTT,

Petitioner,

 v.

J. MARTIN, Associate Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-0064 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Per order filed on June 14, 2006, the court found that one of petitioner’s claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel has not yet been exhausted and, pursuant to the law of the

circuit, instructed petitioner to inform the court in writing whether he wished to (1) withdraw

his unexhausted claim and proceed only on his exhausted claims, (2) dismiss the entire mixed

petition and return to federal court with a new petition once all claims are exhausted, or (3)

seek a stay of the proceedings under Rhines v. Webber, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005). The court

warned petitioner that failure to respond within 20 days would result in the dismissal of the

entire mixed petition without prejudice to filing a new federal petition containing only

exhausted claims.

Petitioner has filed a response in which he “rejects claim of petition to be mixed.”

To the extent that petitioner’s response may be construed as a motion for reconsideration, it

is denied for lack of merit. See Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1067-69 (9th Cir. 2003)

(exhaustion requirement requires that specific factual basis of federal claim be presented to

Case 3:05-cv-00064-CRB Document 16 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0064\Order 2.wpd 2

highest state court; finding unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial

misconduct claims where specific instances of ineffectiveness and misconduct asserted in

federal petition were neither in the California Supreme Court petition nor discussed by the

California Court of Appeal).

Within seven days of this order, petitioner shall inform the court in writing whether he

wishes to (1) withdraw his unexhausted claim and proceed only on his exhausted claims, (2)

dismiss the entire mixed petition and return to federal court with a new petition once all

claims are exhausted, or (3) seek a stay of the proceedings under Rhines. Failure to choose

one of the options above within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the entire

mixed petition without prejudice to filing a new federal petition containing only exhausted

claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 07, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00064-CRB Document 16 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2