Faulkner v. Mule Creek State Prison

Filing 24

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 17 22 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 4/30/2009. (Esteves, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

KENNETH LEWIS FAULKNER, Petitioner, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:08-cv-00806 WMW (HC) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STAY [Docs. #17, 22]

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 two motions to stay his federal claims while he pursued additional claims in state court and requests leave to add those new claims to his federal petition. (Docs. #17, 22). DISCUSSION A district court has discretion to stay a petition which it may validly consider on the merits. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981, 987-88 (9th Cir. 1998); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1274 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1102 (1997). However, the Supreme Court recently held that this discretion is circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. In 1

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
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

light of AEDPA's objectives, "stay and abeyance [is] available only in limited circumstances" and "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. at 277. Even if Petitioner were to demonstrate good cause for that failure, "the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless." Id. In his federal petition, Petitioner already claims six grounds for relief. Petitioner obviously had adequate time to review and research his case in order to file the current claims and he has not shown good cause why this Court should stay his case so that he can pursue new claims. Because NO GOOD CAUSE is showing, Petitioner's motions to stay these proceedings are DENIED. ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: both of Petitioner's Motions to Stay are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2009 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2