MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.

Petitioner Jermaine Wilson filed the above-captioned petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he alleges that he is being held in state custody in violation of his federal constitutional rights. (Pet., Docket Entry No. 1.) Petitioner's claims arise from a judgment of conviction in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, for murder in the second degree.1 (Id. at 1.) Currently before the Court is Petitioner's second motion to hold his habeas petition in abeyance to permit him to file a motion to vacate his conviction in state court pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L.") § 440.10. (Pet. Second Mot. to Stay ("Pet. Second Mot."), Docket Entry No. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Petitioner's second motion for a stay.

I. Background

On April 16, 2010, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree. (Pet. 1.) The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the conviction on March 19, 2014. People v. Wilson, 981 N.Y.S.2d 812 (App. Div. 2014). Leave to appeal was denied on September 2, 214. People v. Wilson, 24 N.Y.3d 966 (2014). On November 2, 2015, Petitioner filed a timely habeas corpus petition based on five grounds exhausted in state court: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient due to reliance on testimony from two unreliable witnesses due to benefits received and outside influence; (2) improper admission of later recanted testimony from two unreliable witnesses made years after the purported crime; (3) failure by the state court to provide a missing witness charge to counter testimony by a detective regarding attempts to locate three uncalled prosecution witnesses; (4) improper jury charge limiting the jury's consideration of benefits received by a witness in assessing her credibility; and (5) failure by the state court judge to provide a no inference instruction. (See Pet. 2, 5-7, 9-10, 13.)

On November 21, 2017, Petitioner requested a stay and abeyance of his habeas petition so that he may seek to vacate his judgment in state court pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10. (See Pet. Mot. to Stay ("Pet. Mot.") 1, Docket Entry No. 9.) Petitioner stated that "he s[ought] an abeyance so that he may `file a criminal procedure law [440.10] motion.'" Id. By Memorandum and Order dated December 14, 2017, the Court denied Petitioner's motion without prejudice. Wilson v. Capra, 281 F.Supp.3d 289, 291 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). The Court explained that the petition only included exhausted claims and that Petitioner had "fail[ed] to state on what basis he s[ought] to vacate his conviction in state court." Id. at 290. Mindful of Petitioner's pro se status, the Court granted Petitioner leave to amend his petition to add the unexhausted C.P.L. § 440.10 claim so that he may renew his motion for stay and abeyance.

On February 22, 2018, Petitioner renewed his motion for stay and abeyance, attaching his C.P.L. § 440.10 motion as an exhibit. (Pet. Second Mot.) The attached C.P.L. § 440.10 motion lists the following unexhausted claims: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel ("IAC") for failure to investigate matters impugning on the credibility and testimony of one of the witnesses (that counsel should have investigated the location of the windows from which the witness purported to see the murder, that the witness was a known gang-member with a history of assaults, that counsel failed to locate another witness), (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request certain Brady material relating to Petitioner's telephone records, and failure to request a hearing to suppress the telephone records; (3) the government's obtainment of his telephone records by a subpoena in violation of due process; and (4) the government's failure to turn over any subpoena and other related documents relating to the telephone records. (See Pet. 440.10 Mot. 5-8, annexed to Pet. Second Mot., Docket Entry No. 12-1.) As with the first motion, the second motion provides no information other than a request to hold the petition in abeyance. (Pet. Second Mot.)

II. Discussion

a. Standard of review

When a habeas petition is "mixed"— that is, one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims — a district court has discretion to hold the petition in abeyance to permit a petitioner to exhaust the unexhausted claims, provided that the "petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that [he] engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics." Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005).

b. Petitioner has not shown good cause

Petitioner fails to demonstrate good cause as to his failure to exhaust his new C.P.L. § 440.10 claims.2 His second motion for stay and abeyance does not provide any explanation as to why he failed to exhaust the unexhausted claims. (See generally Pet. Second Mot.) The attached C.P.L. § 440.10 motion also fails to include any explanation. (See generally Pet. Mot. to Vacate.) Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's second motion for stay and abeyance for lack of good cause.3 See Daniels v. Stalone, No. 14-CV-00219, 2017 WL 2931256, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 10, 2017) (denying motion for stay and abeyance where "[p]etitioner ha[d] not even attempted to demonstrate any cause for his failure to exhaust his [unexhausted] claims"); Carr v. Graham, 27 F.Supp.3d 363, 365 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (denying motion for stay and abeyance for lack of good cause where petitioner "ha[d] not attempted to explain why he failed to exhaust, at an earlier time, [the unexhausted claims]"); see also Wesley-Rosa v. Kaplan, 274 F.Supp.3d 126, 129 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ("None of the[] ordinary badges of incarceration qualifies as good cause sufficient to merit a stay."); Allen v. State of New York, No. 13-CV-0991, 2016 WL 5928817, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) ("Basing a finding of good cause upon pro se status `would render stay-and-abey[ance] orders routine' and thus run afoul of Rhines and its instruction that district courts should only stay mixed petitions in `limited circumstances.'" (citations omitted)).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Petitioner's second motion for a stay.

SO ORDERED.