NOT FOR PUBLICATION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,                            No. 09-15629

              Petitioner - Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00571-BES-
                                                  VPC
  v.

JACK PALMER; ATTORNEY                             MEMORANDUM*
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,

              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, 

, 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, 

, 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, 

, 518 (9th Cir. 2010)

(citation omitted).



AFFIRMED.




                                          2