Schultz

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GERALD SCOGGINS, No. 2:24-CV-1398-DAD-DMC-P Petitioner,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v. SCHULTZ, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are: (1) Respondent's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14; and (2) Petitioner's motion for a stay-and-abeyance order, ECF No. 7. In the motion to dismiss, Respondent argues that the action must be dismissed because none of the claims raised have been exhausted in state court. In his motion for a stay-and-abeyance order, Petitioner seeks a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that a stay is warranted and that the unexhausted petition should be dismissed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the exhaustion of available state remedies is required before claims can be granted by the federal court in a habeas corpus case. See Rose v. Lundy,…