Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Arthur Calderon, Warden, v. United States District Court for the Eastern District Ofcalifornia (sacramento), Respondent,larry Roberts, Real Party in Interest
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 113 F.3d 149
Argued and Submitted Feb. 26, 1997.Decided April 14, 1997.Ordered Published May 5, 1997
Charles R.B. Kirk, Deputy Attorney General, State of California, San Francisco, California, for petitioner.
Claudia Jane Robinson, Sacramento, California, for Real Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-S-93-00254-EJG.
Before: WALLACE, FLETCHER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The order filed April 14, 1997 was not published. It should have been and it is now ordered published.
ORDER
Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, petitions for a writ of mandamus directed to the district court ordering it to vacate its grant of the discovery motions of Larry Roberts, the real party in interest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
In light of the concession by petitioner that his federal habeas petition contains unexhausted claims that must be dismissed or pursued in state court before they may be included in the federal habeas petition, discovery at this time is inappropriate. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 513-520, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1200-1204, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982); Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 107 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.1997) (Gordon); Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct., 98 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.1996) (Nicolaus).
We GRANT the petition for writ of mandamus and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its discovery order unless the real party in interest elects to amend his petition to include only exhausted claims or dismiss without prejudice his current petition for federal habeas corpus relief and file a new petition containing only exhausted claims.