Hill v. White et al

Filing 18

ORDER that Petitioner's Motion for Release Order, Amended Motion for Release Order, Motion for Specific/Special Action, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Expedite Motion for Summary Judgment, docs. 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 and 17 , respectively, are DENIED, without prejudice, as premature. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 9/24/10.(DMT)

-LOA Hill v. White et al

Doc. 18

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Isiah Hill, Petitioner, vs. William White, et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-10-1339-PHX-PGR (LOA) ORDER

On June 25, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) Petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court, matter # CR 2006-009614-001DT, on December 13, 2007 for two counts of conspiracy to illegally control an enterprise and one count each of conspiracy to commit burglary, use of an electronic communication in a drug-related transaction, kidnaping, illegal control of an enterprise, attempted child prostitution, and pandering. Petitioner presents five grounds for relief. (Doc. 1) On September 1, 2010, the Court granted Petitioner in forma pauperis status and ordered Respondents to file an answer to the Petition within 40 days of the date of service. (Doc. 9) Accordingly, Respondents' answer is not yet due. Between September 7 and 22, 2010, Petitioner filed several motions: Motion for Release Order, Amended Motion for Release Order, Motion for Specific/Special Action, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Expedite Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, respectively)

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

Petitioner's pending motions reiterate the claims raised in his § 2254 Petition, argue that Petitioner is in custody illegally, and request that the Court grant Petitioner the relief requested in his Petition. Petitioner's § 2254 Petition is not yet fully briefed and, thus, is not ripe for review. Moreover, the Court will consider the Petition itself once briefing is completed and Petitioner's separate motions requesting the same relief are premature. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Release Order, Amended Motion for Release Order, Motion for Specific/Special Action, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Expedite Motion for Summary Judgment, docs. 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, respectively, are DENIED, without prejudice, as premature. DATED this 24th day of September, 2010.

-2-