Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada directs habeas petitioner Martel Artis to show cause why his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition should not be dismissed without prejudice as wholly unexhausted. The court denies Artis’s motion for an extension of time and permits him to address exhaustion or request a stay by January 19, 2026.
Holdings
- A federal court may screen a § 2254 petition under Habeas Rule 4 and require the petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice when the petition appears wholly unexhausted.
- The motion for extension of time is denied because it is unclear what deadline or period Artis seeks to extend.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should require Artis to show cause why his § 2254 petition should not be dismissed without prejudice as wholly unexhausted.
- Whether Artis's motion for an extension of time should be granted when the requested extension was unclear.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (10)
- Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844–45 (1999)(followed)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991)(followed)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971)(followed)
- Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982)(followed)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 273–75 (2005)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…