Williams v. McEwen

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/17/12 ORDERING that petitioner is granted 30 days to file an amended habeas petition omitting all claims except those claims which have been presented to and rejected by the California Supreme Court. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

XAVIER S. WILLIAMS,

11

Petitioner,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:12-cv-0899 CKD P

L. S. McEWEN,

14

Respondent.

15

ORDER
/

16

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a

17

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to

18

this court’s jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 8.)

19

On May 23, 2012, the court denied petitioner’s motion to stay this action pursuant

20

to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Dkt. No. 9.) The court found that petitioner had

21

“made no attempt to show good cause for failing to exhaust state remedies” as to Claims 1-7.

22

(Id. at 2.) The court granted petitioner thirty days to choose one of the following alternatives: (1)

23

file an amended habeas application omitting all claims except those claims which have been

24

presented to and rejected by the California Supreme Court; or (2) file a renewed motion to stay

25

this action, showing good cause for his failure to exhaust earlier. (Id. at 2-3.)

26

////
1

1

On June 20, 2012, petitioner filed a “justification why [the] court should grant his

2

motion” to stay under Rhines. (Dkt. No. 12.) Petitioner asserts he “is a layman of the law” and

3

was confused about California’s timeliness laws. (Id.) However, he offers no specifics as to why

4

he failed to raise Claims 1-7 in the state courts along with Claims 8-9. (See Dkt. No. 9 at 2.)

5

The court finds that petitioner’s vague and conclusory assertions do not amount to a showing of

6

good cause under Rhines. Thus, the court will not revisit its earlier ruling on petitioner’s motion

7

to stay.

8
9
10

Instead, petitioner will be granted thirty days to file an amended habeas
application omitting all claims except those claims previously exhausted in the California
Supreme Court.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT petitioner is granted thirty days

12

to file an amended habeas petition omitting all claims except those claims which have been

13

presented to and rejected by the California Supreme Court. Failure to timely file an amended

14

petition will result in dismissal of this action.

15

Dated: September 17, 2012

16

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20

2
will0899.ord

21
22
23
24
25
26
2