(HC) Lynch v. Peery, 2:16-cv-00448

Petitioner Damon J. Lynch Jr. filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while conceding he had not exhausted state-court remedies for his federal claims.
The magistrate judge informed Lynch of the Rhines/Mena stay requirements (good cause for failure to exhaust; potentially meritorious claims; no intentional delay) and invited a stay motion.
Lynch filed a one‑paragraph request asking the court to stay the action until state remedies were exhausted, attaching an unrelated California Court of Appeal order dismissing a direct appeal as moot.
The petition asserts four federal claims (coerced confession; Fifth Amendment/self-incrimination; Brady/favorable evidence; altered CALCRIM instruction), none of which had been shown exhausted.
The court found Lynch failed to demonstrate good cause, showed dilatory conduct in pursuing exhaustion, and made no progress after court direction.
The court construed Lynch’s filing as failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders and dismissed the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), with a reminder of the one‑year federal habeas statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should stay and hold the fully unexhausted habeas petition pending state exhaustion	Lynch requested a stay to exhaust state remedies (one‑paragraph request)	Respondent argued exhaustion is required and Lynch did not meet stay standards	Court denied stay—Lynch failed to show good cause and appeared dilatory under Rhines/Mena
Whether petitioner demonstrated "good cause" for failing to exhaust before filing federal petition	Lynch did not provide facts showing why exhaustion was not pursued earlier	Court found no explanation showing good cause for non‑exhaustion	Court held petitioner did not satisfy the good‑cause requirement
Whether petitioner’s claims are potentially meritorious	Lynch asserted constitutional claims in his petition (coerced confession, Brady, etc.)	Court could not assess merits on present record and found no basis to deem claims clearly meritorious	Court declined to treat claims as sufficiently meritorious for a Rhines stay
Whether dismissal is appropriate for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders	Lynch’s sparse submission and lack of exhaustion progress	Court treated the conduct as dilatory and noncompliant with orders	Case dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir.) (standards for staying fully unexhausted habeas petitions)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S.) (stay-and-abeyance available when good cause, potential merit, and no intentional delay)
People v. Cruz, 44 Cal.3d 1247 (Cal. 1988) (state case governing release on own recognizance pending sentencing)