Case Name: Ronald Alex STEVENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER; Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-19
Citations: 410 F. App'x 74
Docket Number: No. 09-15629
Parties: Ronald Alex STEVENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER; Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 410
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
Ronald Alex STEVENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER; Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-15629.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 11, 2011.
Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
Paul G. Turner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Ronald Alex Stevenson, Lovelock, NV, pro se.
Robert E. Wieland, Esquire, Senior Deputy Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Reno, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Ronald Stevenson (Stevenson) appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Stevenson asserts that the district court erred by failing to grant a stay and abeyance so as to allow him to fully exhaust his available remedies in the state courts.
A district court must issue a stay and allow abeyance of a partially exhausted petition if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) there was good cause for the failure to exhaust his claims in state court; (2) the "unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious;" and (3) the petitioner has not "engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics." Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). Stevenson failed to demonstrate good cause because he created the condition that led to his failure to exhaust his claims in state court. See Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.2008) (eschewing a "broad interpretation of 'good cause' ").
We decline to reach Stevenson's uncerti-fied claim because he failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" to warrant a certificate of appealability. Rhoades v. Henry, 598 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir.2010) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.