Bluntschly v. Schriro et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Clerk must serve a copy of the Petition and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respondents must answer the Pe tition within 40 days of service. Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Judge Charles R Pyle added. Judge Charles R Pyle (PS) no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 04/09/07. (DNH, )

Bluntschly v. Schriro et al

Doc. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
TERMPSREF

WO

KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Bluntschly, Petitioner, vs. Dora Schriro, et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 07-627-PHX-SMM (CRP) ORDER

Petitioner Robert Bluntschly, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will require an answer to the Petition. I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b). II. Petition On December 3, 1997, Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CR 96-93649, of Second Degree Murder and was sentenced to a 17-year term

28

Case 2:07-cv-00627-SMM-CRP

Document 3

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 1 of 3
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TERMPSREF

of imprisonment. Petitioner names Dora Schriro as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective; and (2) Petitioner's appellate counsel was ineffective. Petitioner states that he has presented both claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals. A review of the Petition indicates an answer is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. III. Warnings A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner. C. Possible Dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). IT IS ORDERED: (1) is granted. Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Petition,

Case 2:07-cv-00627-SMM-CRP

-2Document 3 Filed 04/10/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TERMPSREF

(2)

The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. #1) and this Order

on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (3) Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service.

Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but may file an answer limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, only those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be attached to the answer. Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be treated as a waiver of the defense. Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (2006). If not limited to affirmative defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (4) answer. (5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle pursuant to Rules Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. DATED this 9th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00627-SMM-CRP

-3Document 3 Filed 04/10/2007

Page 3 of 3