federal habeas claims to allow the petitioner to exhaust his claims in state court, we cannot say that “the sole purpose and effect of the stay is precisely to surrender jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court,” Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 10 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. 927. Rather, such a stay “merely has ‘the practical effect of allowing a state court to be the first to rule on a common issue.’ ” Swanson v. DeSantis, 606 F.3d 829, 834 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 10 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. 927). Because the district court’s order does not put Stanley “effectively out of court,” we are without appellate jurisdiction to determine the propriety of its order. See Cofab, Inc. v. Phila. Joint Bd., Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers’ Union, 141 F.3d 105, 109 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). C. Mandamus “We have authority to issue a
holding that moses h cone did not apply where the district court had no intention to  deep six the suit holding that amendment to the challenged statute mooted the claim when the state had expressed no intention to reenact the prior law holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived holding that plaintiff had no standing because he had no intention of seeking further medical advice or treatment from defendant holding that there was no prejudice where had the district court allowed the moving party the proper opportunity to respond the evidence would have been properly in front of the district court