Jeremiah Banks v. Kathleen Allison
140 F.4th 1181
9th Cir.2025Background:
- Jeremiah Banks, a California state prisoner, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising nine claims; two were exhausted in state court, seven were not.
- Alongside his federal petition, Banks moved for a stay and abeyance under Rhines v. Weber to allow time to exhaust his unexhausted claims in state court.
- Despite being advised promptly after filing, Banks took no meaningful action to pursue state court exhaustion of his unexhausted claims for over a year.
- The district court ultimately denied the Rhines stay, finding Banks failed to show good cause for his lack of post-filing diligence, and dismissed his petition (exhausted claims with prejudice, unexhausted without prejudice).
- Banks appealed, contesting both the dismissal of his stay motion and the lack of opportunity to withdraw unexhausted claims before dismissal under Rose v. Lundy.
Issues:
| Issue | Banks's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-filing diligence must be considered for good cause under Rhines | Good cause should only look backward to reasons for initial failure to exhaust, not post-filing conduct | Lack of post-filing diligence should defeat good cause for a stay | Courts must consider post-filing diligence; denial of stay affirmed |
| Whether Banks showed good cause for failure to exhaust | Lack of counsel and difficulties (COVID-19, retaliation, health, education) excused non-exhaustion | No valid justification for prolonged inaction after filing; Banks had notice and means to act | No good cause shown; factual explanations unavailing |
| Whether district court should have allowed Banks to withdraw unexhausted claims | He should have been given the Rose v. Lundy choice to withdraw unexhausted claims | No such option required if all claims are either unexhausted or dismissed as meritless | No error; no remaining exhausted claims to proceed |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in denying a Rhines stay | Failure to grant stay was an abuse given Banks's situation | Denial was proper under established standards | No abuse of discretion; district court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2005) (establishes good cause, plain merit, and intentional delay standards for stay and abeyance in federal habeas petitions)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (requires total exhaustion of state remedies before federal habeas review)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2012) (lack of counsel in initial-review collateral proceedings may excuse procedural default)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (equitable tolling requires both extraordinary circumstance and diligence)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (state courts must have first opportunity to address federal claims in habeas corpus)