Ronald Stevenson v. Jack Palmer ( 2011 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RONALD ALEX STEVENSON, No. 09-15629
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00571-BES-
VPC
v.
JACK PALMER; ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM*
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 11, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ronald Stevenson (Stevenson) appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Stevenson asserts that the district court erred by failing to grant a stay and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
abeyance so as to allow him to fully exhaust his available remedies in the state
courts.
A district court must issue a stay and allow abeyance of a partially exhausted
petition if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) there was good cause for the failure to
exhaust his claims in state court; (2) the “unexhausted claims are potentially
meritorious;” and (3) the petitioner has not “engaged in intentionally dilatory
litigation tactics.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). Stevenson failed to
demonstrate good cause because he created the condition that led to his failure to
exhaust his claims in state court. See Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1024
(9th Cir. 2008) (eschewing a “broad interpretation of ‘good cause’”).
We decline to reach Stevenson’s uncertified claim because he failed to make
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to warrant a
certificate of appealability. Rhoades v. Henry, 598 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
2