Cain v. Frawner

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 16, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
PAUL CAIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 17-2074
D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00755-WJ-KK
(D. N.M.)
JAMES FRAWNER; HECTOR H.
BALDERAS,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
In state court, Mr. Paul Cain was convicted of third-degree criminal
sexual penetration. After unsuccessfully pursuing state-court remedies, Mr.
Cain sought federal habeas relief. The federal district court found that Mr.
Cain had not exhausted some of his claims and allowed Mr. Cain a
specified time-period to withdraw his unexhausted claims. Mr. Cain did not
respond within the designated time-period, and the district court ordered
dismissal without prejudice on the ground that Mr. Cain had failed to
exhaust some of his habeas claims. Mr. Cain wants to appeal. But to
appeal, he needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
For the certificate of appealability, Mr. Cain must make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). Mr. Cain would meet this standard only if reasonable jurists
could “disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional
claims or . . . jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
A federal district court could grant habeas relief only if Mr. Cain
exhausted all of his habeas claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22
(1982). Mr. Cain does not deny that some of the habeas claims are
unexhausted. But he argues that the court should have stayed the
proceedings because any subsequent habeas petition would be procedurally
barred. But the district court reasoned that Mr. Cain had failed to show
 the presence of good cause for the failure to exhaust the claims
or
 the absence of dilatory tactics.
Mr. Cain has not presented a valid reason to disturb the district court’s
determination. As a result, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not
debate the district court’s decision to order dismissal rather than to stay
-2-
the proceedings. Based on this conclusion, we (1) deny Mr. Cain's request
for a certificate of appealability and (2) dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
-3-