filed state petition for postconviction review. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-182, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001). Here, beca evens, J., concurring) (“[I]n our post-AEDPA world there is no reason why a district court should not retain jurisdiction over a meritorious claim and stay further proceedings pending the complete exhaustion of state remedies. Indeed, there is every reason to do so when AEDPA gives a district court the alternative of simply denying a petition containing unexhausted but nonmeritorious claims, and when the failure to retain jurisdiction would foreclose federal review of a meritorious claim because of the lapse of AEDPA’s 1-year limitations period.”); cf Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (citing Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374 (2d Cir.2001)) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has recently held, however,
holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted holding that a district court faced with a mixed petition should stay the unexhausted claims pending exhaustion rather than dismiss them without prejudice for the same purpose it is preferable to stay proceedings pending exhaustion holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies holding that a district court faced with a mixed petition should dismiss only the unexhausted claims in the habeas petition and stay further proceedings on the remaining portion until the petitioner has exhausted hisher remedies in state court holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted in state court