Spencer v. Cain, 2:12-cv-00755

Spencer, a prisoner, has ongoing state post-conviction proceedings and unexhausted claims in federal court.
He attempted to preserve unexhausted claims by filing motions for protective orders to stay for later review.
Clerk informed him that only mixed petitions with a stay motion could preserve such claims, not separate protective motions.
Petitioner filed multiple petitions; the court consolidated them and treated them as a single petition with stay requests.
Rhines v. Weber limits stays to limited circumstances and requires good cause and potentially meritorious unexhausted claims, otherwise stay is improper.
The court found the federal limitations period had expired before filing, making the applications untimely and justifying denial of stays and protective orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stay should be granted for unexhausted state claims	Spencer seeks stay to allow state exhaustion	Stays improper due to untimeliness and lack of good cause	Stay denied

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 543 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005) (protective petition and stay permissible when state relief sought and conditions met)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2005) (stays should be limited; only when good cause exists and unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless)
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2001) (exhaustion purpose and finality principles in federal habeas)