White v. Ryan et al
Filing
13
ORDER the Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition 1 and this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail. Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/1/11. (TLJ)
1
WO
MDR
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Boy White,
Petitioner,
10
11
vs.
12
Director Charles Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-2126-PHX-GMS (MEA)
ORDER
14
15
I.
Procedural History
16
On August 12, 2011, Petitioner Boy White, who is confined in the Arizona State
17
Prison Complex-Tucson in Tucson, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas
18
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in
19
the Tucson Division of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, White v.
20
Ryan, 11-CV-500-TUC-FRZ (DTF). In an August 24, 2011 Order, the Court denied the
21
incomplete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and gave Petitioner 30 days to either
22
pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
23
24
Pauperis. In a September 21, 2011 Order, the Court denied the second Application to
25
Proceed In Forma Pauperis because it too was incomplete. The Court gave Petitioner 30
26
days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
27
On September 30, 2011, Petitioner filed a third Application to Proceed In Forma
28
TERMPSREF
On September 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and a Certified Statement of Account from the Arizona Department of Corrections
1
Inmate Trust Accounts Office. In an October 11, 2011 Order, the Court denied the third
2
Application to Proceed because Petitioner had more than $25.00 in his inmate account. See
3
LRCiv. 3.5(b). The Court gave Petitioner 30 days to pay the $5.00 filing fee.
4
On October 21, 2011, Petitioner paid the filing fee. In an October 28, 2011 Order, the
5
Court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the case to the Phoenix Division, pursuant to
6
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b), because Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County
7
Superior Court. See LRCiv. 77.1(a). The case was randomly assigned to the undersigned
8
judge.
9
II.
Petition
10
Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #2006-030927-
11
001-SE, of one count of theft and two counts of burglary. He was sentenced to an 11-year
12
term of imprisonment for the theft conviction and 4-year terms of probation for the burglary
13
convictions. In his Petition, Petitioner names Director Charles Ryan as Respondent and the
14
Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent.
15
Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: (1) he received ineffective assistance of
16
counsel; (2) he did not voluntarily and intelligently enter into the plea agreement; and (3) his
17
“mental state, after being incarcerated for two years, was diagnosed as schizophrenic.”
18
Petitioner alleges that he has presented these grounds for relief to the Arizona Court of
19
Appeals. The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
20
III.
Warnings
21
A.
Address Changes
22
Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
23
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other
24
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this
25
action.
26
27
Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a
28
TERMPSREF
B.
Copies
copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a
-2-
1
certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner
2
must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to
3
comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.
4
C.
Possible Dismissal
5
If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these
6
warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
7
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to
8
comply with any order of the Court).
IT IS ORDERED:
9
(1)
10
The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order
11
on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail
12
pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
(2)
13
Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service.
14
Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but may file an answer
15
limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, statute of limitations,
16
procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, only
17
those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be attached to the answer.
18
Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be treated as a waiver of the
19
defense. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209-11 (2006). If not limited to affirmative
20
defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules
21
Governing Section 2254 Cases.
(3)
22
23
....
25
....
26
....
27
....
28
TERMPSREF
answer.
24
Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the
....
-3-
1
(4)
This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules
2
72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and
3
recommendation.
4
DATED this 1st day of November, 2011.
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
-4-
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?