Black v. Kern Valley State Prison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RANDY BLACK, Case No. 21-03386 BLF (PR) Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 12 OF TIME FOR PETITIONER TO v. RESPOND TO FIRST COURT 13 ORDER KVSP, Respondent.

18 Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction out of San Francisco Superior Court.1 Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On August 13, 2021, the Court screened the petition and found it was a mixed petition, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Dkt.

22 No. 9 at 3, citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). The Court directed Petitioner to file notice that he wishes to strike the unexhausted claim and proceed on the three cognizable and exhausted claims identified in the order, or in the alternative, file a motion for a stay that satisfies the factors under Rhines v. Webber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Id. at 3-4.

1 This matter was reassigned to this Court on June 21, 2021, after Petitioner did not file 1 On August 30, 2021, mail sent to Petitioner was returned with a notation on the || envelope, “Inmate Refused.” Dkt. No. 10 at 1. In the interest of justice, the Court shall || direct the Clerk to mail another copy of the screening order to Petitioner and grant him one || final opportunity to respond.

6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 8 1. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order along with a copy of the court’s g || “Order Directing Petitioner to Either File Notice to Strike Unexhausted Claim or File || Motion for Stay,” Dkt. No. 9, to Petitioner.

11 2. Petitioner shall respond to the first court order, Dkt. No. 9, no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date the instant order is filed. If Petitioner again refuses E 13 to receive court mail and it is returned to the Court, then the Court has no choice but to S 14 construe the refusal as an abandonment of this action and dismiss the matter.

3 15 3. Failure to file a timely response in accordance with this order will result || in the dismissal of the petition as a mixed petition under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 5 17 || 510, and without further notice to Petitioner.

5 18 IT ISSO ORDERED.

19 || Dated: October □□ 2021 hobs Lous harmen!

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 25. |] pipRO-SBBLAHC 2N03386Black eotreyy