Magrihi

(HC) Burns v. Magrihi

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 17, 20222:21-cv-02147California2,202 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DWAYNE B. BURNS, No. 2: 21-cv-2147 KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER & FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

ERIC MAGRIHI, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion to stay this action pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (ECF No. 12.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s motion to stay be denied. Legal Standard for Motion to Stay It is well established that a federal court may not “adjudicate mixed petitions for habeas corpus, that is, petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273 (2005) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982)). Historically, federal courts dismissed mixed petitions. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 522; Rhines, 544 U.S. at 274. In 2005, the Supreme Court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.