Murray v. Williams et al

Filing 27

ORDER that within 30 days from the date of entry of this order, petitioner shall file a motion for a stay. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/3/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

STEVEN NELSON MURRAY,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR. et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/

2:12-cv-02212-JCM-VCF
ORDER

17
18

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

19

by a Nevada state prisoner. By order filed January 22, 2014, the court granted respondents’ motion

20

to partially dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 23). Because the court ruled that grounds I(H) and II(A)

21

were unexhausted, making the petition a “mixed petition” containing both exhausted and

22

unexhausted claims, the court granted petitioner thirty days in which to choose among the following

23

three options:

24
25
26

1.

He may submit a sworn declaration voluntarily abandoning the unexhausted
claims in his federal habeas petition, and proceed only on the exhausted
claims; or

1

2.

He may return to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims, in which case
his federal habeas petition will be denied without prejudice; or

3.

He may file a motion asking this court to stay and abey his exhausted federal
habeas claims while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted
claims.

2
3
4
See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982); Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005); Kelly v. Small,
5
315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002); King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2009). (ECF No. 23, at p. 11).
6
On February 25, 2014, petitioner filed a one-page notice indicating that he chooses option #3,
7
among the options given to him in the court’s order of January 22, 2014. (ECF No. 24). On
8
February 27, 2014, petitioner filed a similar document, indicating that he chooses option #3. (ECF
9
No. 25). It is not sufficient for petitioner to simply say that he chooses option #3. Petitioner must
10
file an actual motion asking this court to stay and abey the federal petition while he returns to state
11
court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. The court may stay a petition containing both exhausted
12
and unexhausted claims if: (1) the habeas petitioner has established good cause for his failure to
13
exhaust the unexhausted claims; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3)
14
petitioner has not engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023-24
15

(9th Cir. 2008); see Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). To the extent that petitioner seeks a stay

16
in this action, he must file a motion for a stay, making the above three-pronged showing, in
17

accordance with Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2008) and Rhines v. Weber,

18
544 U.S. 269 (2005).
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this
20
order, petitioner shall file a motion for a stay so that he may return to state court to exhaust his
21
unexhausted claims. In the alternative, petitioner may choose from one of the other two options
22
given to him in the court’s order of January 22, 2014, to be filed within thirty (30) days from the
23
date of entry of this order.
24
25
26

2

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if petitioner fails to respond to this order within the time
permitted, this case may be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.
March 3, day of
DATED this _____2014. ______________________________, 2014.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3