(HC) Booker v. Lynch ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES BOOKER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01894-NONE-JDP 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY 13 v. OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 14 J. LYNCH, ECF No. 9 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner James Booker, a state prisoner without counsel, filed a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. I dismissed that petition with leave to amend on October 6, 19 2020 after finding that the petition appeared to contain only unexhausted claims. ECF No. 8 at 2. 20 In a footnote, I also noted that petitioner’s claims might be time-barred. Id. at 2 n.1. My order 21 gave petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition which addressed both issues. Id. at 2. As 22 of this filing, petitioner has not filed an amended petition. He has, however, filed a motion to 23 stay, ECF No. 9, which I recommend be denied without prejudice. 24 Petitioner’s motion fails because there is no longer any petition to stay. As state above, I 25 dismissed his initial petition with leave to amend on October 6 and before petitioner motioned for 26 a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). At that point, the initially filed petition was 27 no longer operative. I will deny petitioner’s motion to stay without prejudice. If he wishes to 28 obtain a stay under Rhines, he should file an amended petition and then resubmit a motion to stay. 1 | He is advised that a petitioner seeking a Rhines stay must show: (1) good cause for his failure to 2 | exhaust before advancing to federal court, (2) that the unexhausted claims are not “plainly 3 | meritless,” and (3) that he has not engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” 544 4 | U.S. at 277-78. He should discuss those elements in any future motion to stay he files. 5 It is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to rule on these 6 | findings and recommendations. 7 I recommend that petitioner’s motion for a stay be denied. ECF No. 9. These findings 8 | and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over this case 9 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States 10 | District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty days of the service of the findings and 11 || recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 12 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to 13 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the 14 | findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ November 17, 2020 Q_——_ 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28