Anscott v. Williams

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 42 Motion to Stay and Abeyance. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Anscott's reply to the answer is due by 10/6/16. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 9/6/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Jess Guy Anscott,

5

Petitioner

2:13-cv-1833-JAD-VCF
Order Denying Motion for Stay and
Abeyance

6

v.

7

Brian Williams, et al.,

8

[ECF No. 42]

Respondents

9
10

Pro se state-prison inmate Jess Guy Anscott brings this § 2254 action to challenge his Nevada

11

state-court conviction and sentence for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and resultant

12

adjudication as a habitual criminal. On February 2, 2015, I granted in part and denied in part

13

respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. Because I found that several grounds in Anscott’s

14

petition are unexhausted, I ordered Anscott to inform the court whether he wishes to proceed on only

15

his exhausted claims or file a motion for stay and abeyance by April 18, 2015.1
Anscott timely submitted a declaration of abandonment of his unexhausted claims,2 and

16
17

respondents filed an answer to the remaining claims in his petition.3 On the date that his extended

18

deadline to file a reply to respondents’ answer expired, Anscott submitted a motion for a stay and

19

abeyance.4 A stay and abeyance is available only if the petitioner can show that there was good

20

cause for his failure to first exhaust his claims in state court and that his unexhausted claims are not

21
22
23
24
25

1

ECF No. 24. The deadline was originally March 4, 2015, but I granted Anscott’s request to
continue the deadline to April 18, 2015. ECF No. 26.

26

2

ECF No. 29.

27

3

ECF No. 35.

28

4

ECF No. 42.
Page 1 of 2

1

plainly meritless.5 Anscott notified the court more than 16 months ago that he was forever

2

abandoning his unexhausted claims and wishes to proceed on only his exhausted claims.6 And

3

Anscott’s one-page motion does make any attempt to show that there was good cause for his failure

4

to first exhaust his unexhausted claims in state court or that his unexhausted claims are not plainly

5

meritless.7 Accordingly,

6
7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Anscott’s motion for stay and abeyance [ECF No. 42] is
DENIED, and Anscott’s reply to the answer is due by October 6, 2016.

8

Dated September 6, 2016

9

_________________________________
_______________________
_
_
_
_
_
Jennifer A. Dorsey
ennifer A
ni
ni
United States District Judge
ed States District Judge
d ta
ict u

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

26

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (stating that “stay and abeyance 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. [And] even if a petitioner [shows good cause], the district court would
abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly
meritless.”).

27

6

ECF No. 29.

28

7

ECF No. 42 at 1.

5

24
25

Page 2 of 2