Ronald Stevenson v. Jack Palmer, et al, No. 09-15629 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 19 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RONALD ALEX STEVENSON, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-15629 D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00571-BESVPC v. JACK PALMER; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, MEMORANDUM* Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 11, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Ronald Stevenson (Stevenson) appeals the district court s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Stevenson asserts that the district court erred by failing to grant a stay and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. abeyance so as to allow him to fully exhaust his available remedies in the state courts. A district court must issue a stay and allow abeyance of a partially exhausted petition if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) there was good cause for the failure to exhaust his claims in state court; (2) the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and (3) the petitioner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). Stevenson failed to demonstrate good cause because he created the condition that led to his failure to exhaust his claims in state court. See Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (eschewing a broad interpretation of good cause ). We decline to reach Stevenson s uncertified claim because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to warrant a certificate of appealability. Rhoades v. Henry, 598 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.