1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RANDY BLACK, Case No. 21-03386 BLF (PR) 11 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 v. 13

14 KVSP, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under

, challenging his state conviction out of San Francisco 20 Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On August 13, 2021, the Court screened the petition and 21 found it was a mixed petition, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Dkt. 22 No. 9 at 3, citing Rose v. Lundy,

(1982). The Court directed Petitioner 23 to file notice that he wishes to strike the unexhausted claim and proceed on the three 24 cognizable and exhausted claims identified in the order, or in the alternative, file a motion 25 for a stay that satisfies the factors under Rhines v. Webber,

(2005). Id. at 3-4. 26 On August 30, 2021, mail sent to Petitioner was returned with a notation on the 27 envelope, “Inmate Refused.” Dkt. No. 10 at 1. On October 7, 2021, in the interest of 1 || Petitioner and granted him one final opportunity to respond. Dkt. No. 11. Petitioner was 2 || advised that failure to file a timely response in accordance with the order will result in the 3 || dismissal of the petition as a mixed petition under Rose v. Lundy,

, and 4 || without further notice to Petitioner. /d. at 2. 5 Over two months have passed since the Court’s last order, and Petitioner has had no 6 || further communication with the Court. Accordingly, petition is DISMISSED as a mixed 7 || petition. See Rose v. Lundy,

. 8 The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: _ December 16, 2021 __ Ae Lye jrcrnuey) BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 3 12

2B 14 o 15 16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order of Dismissal 25 P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.21\03386Black_dism 26 27