Jimenez v. Williams, 2:14-cv-01916

Petitioner Jimenez pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of first‑degree kidnapping (deadly‑weapon enhancements dropped), and attempted murder with a deadly weapon.
After pleading guilty he filed motions to withdraw the plea which the state district court denied; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed his direct appeal.
Jimenez filed a first state post‑conviction habeas petition; after an evidentiary hearing the state court denied it and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed in relevant part.
In federal court Jimenez filed an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising (at least) two ineffective‑assistance claims about counsel’s handling of the kidnapping charges (one claim exhausted, one not).
Respondents moved to dismiss the unexhausted claim (ground 3); the district court found ground 3 was not fairly presented to the Nevada Supreme Court and therefore unexhausted, making the petition "mixed."
The court granted the motion to dismiss as to exhaustion and gave Jimenez 30 days to: (1) dismiss ground 3 and proceed on the exhausted claim, (2) dismiss the federal petition and return to state court to exhaust, or (3) move to stay the federal action to exhaust in state court (must satisfy Rhines factors).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ground 3 (counsel failed to move to dismiss kidnapping counts) is exhausted in state court	Jimenez argued the claim in his state habeas supplement	Respondents argued Jimenez did not fairly present the claim on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court	The court held ground 3 is unexhausted because Jimenez did not raise it in his fast‑track statement and the Nevada Supreme Court did not address it
Appropriate disposition for a mixed § 2254 petition	Jimenez implied he wants federal review of claims	Respondents moved to dismiss unexhausted claim	Court ordered options: dismiss the unexhausted claim and proceed; dismiss federal petition to return to state court; or move to stay the action under Rhines (must show good cause, potential merit, no intentional delay)

Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (fair‑presentation requirement for state exhaustion)
Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982) (federal habeas petitioner must fairly present federal claim to state courts)
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (mixed petitions require dismissal or exhaustion)
Szeto v. Rushen, 709 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1983) (application of Rose procedural rule in Ninth Circuit)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay‑and‑abeyance available when good cause, potential merit, and no intentional delay are shown)