Williams v. Ryan et al
Filing
6
ORDER granting 4 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Petition 1 and this action are dismissed without prejudice as premature. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/12/11.(TLJ)
1
WO
KM
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Lamares Lee Williams,
Petitioner,
10
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-1975-PHX-GMS (MEA)
ORDER
15
16
Petitioner Lamares Lee Williams, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison
17
Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 2254. In an October 27, 2011 Order, the Court directed Petitioner to pay the filing fee or
19
file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On November 2, 2011, Petitioner filed
20
an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the Petition as
21
premature.
22
I.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
23
Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust
24
account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma
25
Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).
26
II.
27
28
Petition
Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR 2009-160889-
1
002, of misconduct involving a weapon and was sentenced to a 7-year term of imprisonment.
2
Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an
3
additional Respondent.
4
Petitioner states that he presently has a petition for post-conviction relief pending
5
before the Maricopa County Superior Court.
6
III.
Exhaustion
7
Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust
8
remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526
9
U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must describe both the operative facts
10
and the federal legal theory so that the state courts have a “fair opportunity” to apply
11
controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim. Kelly v. Small,
12
315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003). In cases not carrying a life sentence or death penalty,
13
claims are exhausted once the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them. See Swoopes
14
v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999).
15
In light of the pending proceedings in state court, which could affect Petitioner’s
16
sentence and which could also ultimately affect these proceedings, it would be inappropriate
17
for this Court to rule on Petitioner's claims at this time. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d
18
632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (even where claim to be challenged has been finally settled in state
19
courts, petitioner must await outcome of his appeal in state court before remedies are
20
exhausted); Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (per curiam) (pending post-
21
conviction proceedings precluded grant of writ of habeas corpus). Because this habeas action
22
is premature, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.
23
...
24
...
25
...
26
...
27
...
28
...
-2-
1
IT IS ORDERED:
2
(1)
Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4) is granted.
3
(2)
The Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without prejudice as
4
5
premature. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment and close this case.
DATED this 12th day of December, 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?