files an amended petition deleting the unexhausted claims; (2) the district court stays and holds in abeyance the fully exhausted petition; and (3) the petitioner later amends the petition to include the newly exhausted claims. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). A Kelly stay does not require a showing of good cause. Id. at 1140. But a Kelly stay will be denied when the court finds such a stay would be futile. See Richson v. Biter, 2015 WL 5031916, *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015). Futility would exist if the petitioner seeks a stay to exhaust a meritless claim. Indeed, the purpose of the Kelly stay procedure is to allow for a stay “when valid claims would otherwise by forfeited,” Kelly, 315 F.3d at 1070 (emphasis added); cf. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (<HOLDING>). Here, petitioner offered no justification in
holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion holding it is an abuse of discretion to grant stay on plainly meritless claims holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny stay while matter was pending in neighboring state