
    Matthew James LEACHMAN, Clerk Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
    No. 17-20008
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 1, 2017
    Matthew James Leachman, Pro Se
    Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Matthew James Leachman, Texas prisoner # 903617 / Harris County # 01525039, was convicted of indecency with a child. He seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal, the district court’s order denying his motion for stay and abeyance of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding so that he could exhaust his state court remedies. Leachman contends that the district court erred by denying his motion, arguing that he had good cause warranting a stay, i.e., his reasonable confusion regarding whether the sole claim raised in his state habeas application was exhausted pursuant to the requirements set forth in Texas Government Code § 501.0081 and thus whether the application was properly filed for tolling purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2).

A district court should grant a stay if it determines that the prisoner has shown good cause warranting a stay, that the prisoner has raised meritorious issues, and that the prisoner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory tactics. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). Leachman has not satisfied this standard; at the very least, he has failed to show good cause excusing his failure to exhaust his state remedies. Thus, he has not established that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a stay. See id. at 278, 125 S.Ct. 1528.

The district court’s denial of the motion for stay and abeyance is AFFIRMED, Leachman’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY as no COA is required to review the district court’s ruling on this non-merits issue. See Young v. Stephens, 795 F.3d 484, 494 (5th Cir. 2015). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that' this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     