With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding it is an abuse of discretion to grant stay on plainly meritless claims
B: holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
C: holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion
D: holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony
A.