Farnsworth v. Holbrook

Filing 27

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Lift Stay. Respondent shall file an answer to the Petition as directed in the Order Directing Service (Dkt. 11) by 4/6/18. The Clerk is directed to lift the stay in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Charles Farnsworth, Prisoner ID: 875475)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 CHARLES V FARNSWORTH, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER LIFTING STAY v. DONALD HOLBROOK, Respondent. 14 15 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05132-BHS-DWC The District Court has referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Charles V. Farnsworth filed a federal habeas Petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from a state court conviction. See Dkt. 1. Currently before the Court is Respondent’s Motion to Lift Stay. Dkt 25. On May 5, 2017, the Court stayed this case because the Petition included a claim that was pending in the Washington state court. Dkt. 15. Respondent has now filed the Motion stating the state court has resolved the claim. Dkt. 25. Petitioner filed a Response stating he wishes the stay to remain because he has now filed a state personal restraint petition (“PRP”). Dkt. 26. 23 24 ORDER LIFTING STAY - 1 1 “District courts do ordinarily have authority to issue stays, . . . where such a stay would 2 be a proper exercise of discretion.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005) (internal citation 3 omitted). A stay and abeyance in federal habeas cases, however, “should be available only in 4 limited circumstances.” Id. at 277. A stay may be granted if: (1) the petitioner has “good cause” 5 for the failure to exhaust his grounds in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially 6 meritorious; and (3) there is no indication the petitioner intentionally engaged in dilatory 7 litigation tactics. Id. at 278; see Riner v. Crawford, 415 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1210 (D. Nev. 2006). 8 Petitioner requests the Court stay his Petition so that he may properly exhaust all his 9 claims for relief. Dkt. 26. Petitioner, however, does not state what claims are unexhausted or 10 allege that he raised the allegedly unexhausted claims in the pending PRP. See id. Petitioner has 11 also not shown good cause for the failure to exhaust the allegedly unexhausted claims. Id. 12 Further, Petitioner has failed to show the alleged unexhausted claims are meritorious. Id. As 13 Petitioner has not shown he meets the first two requirements necessary for a stay, the Court 14 declines to consider the third requirement and finds Petitioner has not shown it is appropriate to 15 continuing staying this case. 16 Therefore, Respondent’s Motion (Dkt. 25) is granted. Respondent shall file an answer to 17 the Petition as directed in the Order Directing Service (Dkt. 11) by April 6, 2018. The Clerk is 18 directed to lift the stay in this case. 19 Dated this 5th day of March, 2018. 21 A 22 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 20 23 24 ORDER LIFTING STAY - 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?