1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * *

6 WALTER CLARK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01183-RFB-MDC

7 Petitioner, ORDER

8 v.

9 RON OLIVER, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner Walter Clark’s Motion to Stay Case 13 (ECF No. 13). Respondents have filed a Non-Opposition to Clark’s Motion. ECF No. 15. 14 Clark challenges his state court conviction. His direct appeal did not proceed until after he 15 litigated his first state postconviction habeas petition. He asserts that sixteen claims of ineffective 16 assistance of counsel have never been presented to state courts. Clark now seeks a stay and 17 abeyance so that he may exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 18 Federal courts may not grant a writ of habeas corpus brought by a person in custody 19 pursuant to a state court judgment unless “the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in 20 the courts of the State.”

(b)(1)(A). This exhaustion requirement is “grounded in 21 principles of comity” as it gives states “the first opportunity to address and correct alleged 22 violations of state prisoner’s federal rights.” Coleman v. Thompson,

(1991). In 23 general, a federal district court must dismiss an unexhausted petition without prejudice. Coleman, 24

(noting that the Supreme Court “has long held that a state prisoner’s federal habeas 25 petition should be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted available state remedies as to any of 26 his federal claims”); Castille v. Peoples,

(1989) (habeas petitions should be 27 dismissed if state remedies have not been exhausted as to any federal claims). 28 1 A district court is authorized to stay an unexhausted petition “limited circumstances,” to 2 allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state court without losing his right to federal 3 habeas review due to the relevant one-year statute of limitations. Rhines v. Weber,

269, 273–75 (2005); Mena v. Long,

(9th Cir. 2016) (holding that district courts 5 have authority to stay and hold in abeyance both mixed petitions and “fully unexhausted petitions 6 under the circumstances set forth in Rhines”). Under the Rhines test, “a district court must stay a 7 mixed petition only if: (1) the petitioner has ‘good cause’ for his failure to exhaust his claims in 8 state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) there is no indication 9 that the petitioner intentionally engaged in dilatory litigation tactics.” Wooten v. Kirkland, 540

(9th Cir. 2008) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278). 11 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that the Rhines “good cause” standard does not 12 require “extraordinary circumstances.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024 (citing Jackson v. Roe,

654, 661–62 (9th Cir. 2005)). But courts “must interpret whether a petitioner has ‘good cause’ for 14 a failure to exhaust in light of the Supreme Court’s instruction in Rhines that the district court 15 should only stay mixed petitions in ‘limited circumstances’.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024 16 (citing Jackson, 425 F.3d at 661). Courts must also “be mindful that AEDPA aims to encourage 17 the finality of sentences and to encourage petitioners to exhaust their claims in state court before 18 filing in federal court.” Wooten, 540 F.3d at 1024 (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276–77). 19 The Court finds that Clark has established good cause exists for his failure to exhaust in 20 21 state court. Clark also establishes that “at least one of his unexhausted claims is not ‘plainly 22 meritless.’” Dixon, 847 F.3d at 722. The Court further finds that Clark has not engaged in 23 intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Accordingly, the Court will grant Clark’s motion. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Walter Clark’s Motion to Stay Case 25 (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. 26 It is FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending exhaustion of the 27 unexhausted claims in the amended petition. 28 It is FURTHER ORDERED that the grant of a stay is conditioned upon Petitioner filing, 1| same is not already pending, a state post-conviction petition or other appropriate proceeding in state district court and returning to federal court with a motion to reopen within forty-five (45) days of issuance of the remittitur by the Supreme Court of Nevada at the conclusion of all state 4| court proceedings. 5 It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to 6| ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action until such time as the Court grants a motion to 7 | reopen the matter. 8 It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will reset the briefing schedule upon reopening 9 | the case and lifting the stay. 10 11 DATED: December 16, 2025.

13 RICHARD F. BOUTIWRE, IT 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-