Stamps v. Grounds

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. RESPONSE DUE BY 12/17/2012. Signed by Judge Alsup on 12/3/12. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KEITH STAMPS, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RANDY GROUNDS, Respondent. / 15 16 No. C 12-05753 WHA State prisoner Keith Stamps, through counsel, filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus 17 on November 8, 2012. The petition stated that he had a pending habeas petition before the state 18 Supreme Court. According to petitioner’s federal filing, Stamps’ state petition included the 19 same issues on which he seeks relief from this Court. Several of those claims — those related to 20 his alleged status as a juvenile at the time of the offense for which he was convicted — 21 apparently have not been otherwise presented to a state court. Petitioner therefore appears not to 22 have exhausted his state-court remedies as to two of the five claims presented in his federal 23 habeas petition. 24 The petition includes the notation that “[p]etitioner intends, simultaneous to his filing of 25 the federal petition, to seek a ‘stay-and-abate’ order pursuant to Rhines v. Weber 544 U.S. 269, 26 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005) with respect to the claims articulated in ¶5(c).” Rhines held that a district 27 court has the authority to issue stays of mixed petitions under AEDPA where good cause exists 28 for petitioner’s failure to exhaust the claims in state court and the claims are potentially meritorious. Id. at 277. Perhaps petitioner seeks to follow this procedure. He has not done so, 1 however, because there is no request for stay or abeyance. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW 2 CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED for 3 remedies. Petitioner’s response is due by DECEMBER 17 AT NOON. Absent a showing of good 4 cause under Rhines, petitioner may decide to exhaust the unexhausted claims by returning to 5 state court, or may abandon those claims and pursue the remaining exhausted claims in federal 6 court by filing an amended petition that removes the unexhausted claims. See Jefferson v. 7 Budge, 419 F.3d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir. 2005). failure to exhaust state 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: December 3, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?