Troy Reggie Haynes v. P E Brazelton, 2:13-cv-00220

Petitioner Haynes, a state prisoner, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 11, 2013.
Petition targets Haynes's October 12, 2010 conviction in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County for four counts of second degree robbery (YA07 4092).
Conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal on December 28, 2011, and the California Supreme Court denied review on March 21, 2012.
On December 10, 2012, Haynes filed a state habeas petition with the California Supreme Court (case no. S207236) that remains pending.
The federal petition is dismissed as unexhausted because a state post-conviction action is still pending, precluding federal review under AEDPA § 2254(d).
The court denies Haynes’ request for a stay and dismisses the petition without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is exhausted.	Haynes asserts federal review is appropriate despite a pending state petition.	Sherwood/ Schnepp logic requires exhaustion; state post-conviction pending warrants dismissal.	Petition dismissed as unexhausted.
Whether the petition should be stayed pending exhaustion.	Petitioner seeks a stay under limited circumstances.	Once a petition is fully unexhausted, stay is improper.	Stay denied; dismissal without prejudice.
Whether the face of the petition shows entitlement to relief under AEDPA.	Not at issue since state remedies are pending.	AEDPA requires exhaustion; no merits review while state remedies are ongoing.	Not reached due to unexhausted status; dismissal without prejudice.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (state prisoner must exhaust state remedies; premature federal review)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay where mixed petitions present; limited exception)
Jimenez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court action when petition contains no exhausted claims must dismiss)
Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (if petition contains only unexhausted claims, dismissal is proper)
Davis v. Silva, 511 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion requirement and state court opportunity to address federal rights)
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (federal habeas review limited to claims tied to state court record and law)
Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1983) (exhaustion doctrine extends to post-conviction challenges pending in state court)
Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (state remedies not exhausted when post-conviction proceedings are pending)
Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2002) (federal habeas courts may take judicial notice of state court records)