1The original petition for a writ of habeas corpus (document

no. 1) contained ten claims, and demonstrated that one of those

claims had been exhausted prior to filing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Otis Daniels

v. Civil No. 05-cv-348-JL

Larry Blaisdell, Warden,

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Before the Court is Otis Daniels’ petition for a writ of

habeas corpus (document no. 1) and amended petition for a writ of

habeas corpus (document no. 18). When this matter initially came

before the Court for preliminary review, I issued an Order on

October 17, 2005, directing Daniels to amend his pleadings to

demonstrate exhaustion of nine unexhausted claims.1 On 

November 1, 2005, I granted Daniels’ motion to stay his petition

so that he could return to the state courts and exhaust his nine

unexhausted claims.

On November 5, 2007, Daniels filed his amended petition

(document no. 18), which demonstrated exhaustion of four of the

nine previously unexhausted claims, and the exhaustion of an

Case 1:05-cv-00348-JL Document 23 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 3
2

additional claim, which he added to the action in his amended

petition (document no. 18). At that time, Daniels’ filings

failed to demonstrate exhaustion of five of the original claims. 

On March 6, 2008, Daniels was directed to again amend his

habeas petition, to either withdraw the unexhausted claims, or to

voluntarily dismiss the entire petition. Daniels has now written

a letter to the Court requesting a stay in this matter to allow

him to return to the State courts. Alternatively, Daniels seeks

to withdraw his unexhausted claims rather than risk dismissal of

his entire petition.

Construing the letter from Daniels as a motion to stay or,

in the alternative, to withdraw the unexhausted claims, I deny

the motion to stay, and grant the motion to withdraw the

unexhausted claims, numbered in my previous orders as claims 

#3-7.

Accordingly, claims #1, 2, and 8-11 in the petition and

amended petition (document nos. 1 & 18) shall be served upon the

Respondent, which shall file an answer or other pleading in

response to the allegations made therein. See Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

(“§ 2254 Rules”) (requiring reviewing judge to order a response

Case 1:05-cv-00348-JL Document 23 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 3
3

to the petition). The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the

New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General, as provided in the

Agreement on Acceptance of Service copies of this Order, my prior

Orders in this case (document nos. 3 & 21). 

The Respondent shall answer or otherwise plead within thirty

(30) days of the date of this Order. The answer shall comply

with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5, which sets forth the

contents of the answer. 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’

attorney(s). 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 11, 2008

cc: Otis Daniels, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00348-JL Document 23 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 3