Opinion
Case No. 03:04-CV-00288-LRH (RAM).
December 6, 2005
ORDER
The Court found that several grounds of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (#6) were unexhausted. Order #18. Petitioner, John Earl Ward, responded (#21) that he wanted to dismiss the Petition (#6) and return to state court to exhaust those grounds. The Court granted his request and dismissed the action. Order #22. Ward now asks the Court not to dismiss the action but to stay it while he exhausts his grounds in state court. Letter #24. He does not show that good cause exists to stay this action.See Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1534-35 (2005). Ward simultaneously declares that he wishes to abandon the unexhausted grounds and proceed in this Court with the exhausted grounds. Declaration #25. These options are mutually exclusive; Ward must choose one.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is entered to (1) inform this Court in a sworn declaration, signed by Petitioner himself, that he wishes to dismiss Grounds 1, 2(2) through 2(5) and 2(7) through 2(16), 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the portion of Ground 5 concerning the merger of possession of a stolen vehicle and eluding a police officer of his Petition (#6), and proceed only on the remaining grounds, or (2) move to stay this action while he returns to state court to exhaust his State remedies with respect to the aforementioned grounds.