UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Pandolfi

v. Civil No. 05-cv-165-SM

Ashbelt T. Wall, et al.

O R D E R

William Pandolfi filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his New Hampshire

criminal conviction and sentence (document no. 1) on May 16,

2005. On June 7, 2005, Pandolfi was ordered to amend his

petition to state, with specificity: 

1. What precise violation of what federal right is alleged

in each claim set forth in his petition;

2. What pleadings have been filed in what state courts to 

present each claim, and its federal nature, to those 

courts;

3. The state courts’ responses to each of the claims 

presented;

4. What dates each state court action was commenced and 

concluded; and

5. The precise nature of any pending action, including 

what claims are pending, and what, if anything, 

warrants a determination that the actions of the state

courts have caused an “unreasonable delay” on the

resolution of these matters.

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 15 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 4
1Pandolfi filed a motion for leave of service (document no.

6), a motion to appoint counsel (document no. 7) and a motion to

extend time to file (document no. 8).

2

My June 7, 2005 Order also acknowledged that, in order to fully

demonstrate that all of his claims, including the federal nature

of each claim, had been exhausted in the state courts, Pandolfi

might have to return to the state courts to complete the

exhaustion process. 

In July of 2005, Pandolfi filed several motions1 and three

separate addenda to his petition (document nos. 9-11). On July

28, 2005, Pandolfi was directed to demonstrate what steps he was

taking to exhaust his claims within thirty days of that Order

(document no. 12). On August 12, 2005, Pandolfi filed a motion

to stay his petition “pending resolution of state course”

alleging that the matter was then pending in the state courts

(document no. 13). That motion was granted and the Court

directed Pandolfi to notify the court of the status of his state

court proceedings every 90 days. My review of the file does not

review any status report provided to this Court since the time of

that Order. 

On May 12, 2006, Pandolfi filed a motion to reinstate his

habeas petition (document no. 14) which generally alleged that he

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 15 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 4
3

had given the state courts an opportunity to rule on his claims. 

Attached to that motion is a copy of a notice from the New

Hampshire Supreme Court advising Pandolfi that his notice of

appeal, filed in case number 2006-0172 had been declined on April

21, 2006. No pleadings or other documents indicating what issues

were presented to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in that case

have been supplied to this Court.

After careful review of the three addenda sent to this Court

in July of 2005, I have determined that, of the ten claims that I

identified as having been raised in the original habeas petition,

two of them, numbered 1 and 6 in my June 7, 2005 Order, appear to

have been exhausted in the state courts. Pandolfi has

demonstrated that these two claims, including the federal nature

of the claims, were presented to the New Hampshire Supreme Court

in case number 2003-0033. The pleadings currently before this

Court reveal no other information about exhaustion at this time. 

In my June 7, 2005 Order, I spelled out for Pandolfi exactly what

he must allege and how in order to sufficiently demonstrate

exhaustion to allow his habeas corpus petition to proceed. 

The notice of declination attached to Pandolfi’s motion to

reinstate provides no information about which, if any, of the

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 15 Filed 07/13/06 Page 3 of 4
4

claims in the petition have been exhausted by the presentation of

a notice of appeal to the state supreme court. Pandolfi is now

directed to provide to this Court, within thirty days of the date

of this Order, a copy of the notice of appeal and all the

attachments thereto, provided to the New Hampshire Supreme Court

in case number 2006-0172, and any other pleadings presented to

the New Hampshire Supreme Court since June 7, 2005. Upon receipt

of Pandolfi’s submission, the Court will determine whether or not

the habeas corpus petition can proceed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 13, 2006

cc: William Pandolfi, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00165-SM Document 15 Filed 07/13/06 Page 4 of 4