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)

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