Steven Oscar Austin v. Unknown

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California finds that Steven Oscar Austin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is wholly unexhausted because the claims were not presented to the California Supreme Court. The court denies Austin’s request for appointment of counsel and grants him thirty days to move for a Rhines stay while he exhausts his claims. The court warns that failure to file a stay motion will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Holdings

1. Austin's federal habeas claims were not exhausted because none of the claims raised in the federal petition had been fairly presented to the California Supreme Court.
2. Austin was granted thirty days to file a motion for a stay under Rhines while exhausting his claims; if he failed to do so, the court would recommend dismissal.
3. A Kelly stay was unavailable because the petition was wholly unexhausted rather than mixed.
4. Austin's request for appointment of counsel was denied because there is no absolute right to appointed counsel in federal habeas proceedings and the court did not find that the interests of justice required appointment at that time.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Austin exhausted his federal habeas claims by fairly presenting them to the California Supreme Court.
2. Whether Austin was entitled to a stay and abeyance under Rhines while exhausting his unexhausted claims.
3. Whether Austin was entitled to appointment of counsel in the federal habeas proceeding.

Disposition

other