DeRoche v. Ryan et al
Filing
6
ORDER granting 3 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 and this case are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/6/11.(TLJ)
1
2
RP
WO
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Joshua DeRoche,
Petitioner,
10
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-2180-PHX-DGC (JFM)
ORDER
15
16
Petitioner Joshua DeRoche, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-
17
Eyman, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
18
(Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3), and an “Inmate Bank
19
Account” statement (Doc. 4). The Court will dismiss the Petition and this case without
20
prejudice.
21
I.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
22
Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and “Inmate Bank Account”
23
statement indicate that his inmate trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the
24
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).
25
II.
26
27
28
Petition
Named as Respondent in the Petition is Charles L. Ryan. The Attorney General of
the State of Arizona is named in the Petition as an Additional Respondent.
In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his custody on his judgment of conviction on
1
June 8, 2007, for Kidnapping, entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court in matter
2
CR2004-010688-001 DT. Petitioner alleges he was sentenced to a 9.25-year term of
3
imprisonment from June 8, 2007, with 1,263 days of presentence incarceration credit.
4
5
Petitioner presents three grounds in the Petition in support of his request for habeas
relief:
6
(1)
“The Institutional Classification Committee repeatedly
delays hearing review dates, in violation of the Due Process
Clause[,] 14th Amendment[,] U.S. Constitution”;
7
8
(2)
“The Institutional Classification Committee does not
allow restoration of forfeited release credits to maximum
custody inmates, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause,
14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution”; and
9
10
(3)
“The Institutional Classification Committee does not
allow restoration of forfeited release credits to inmates without
access to ETV (Eyman Television), in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause, 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.”
11
12
13
Petitioner seeks the “[w]hole or partial restoration, at the Court’s discretion, of
14
approximately one hundred and ten (110) forfeited release credits” and alleges that his
15
available administrative remedies within the prison have been exhausted. However,
16
Petitioner also alleges that he has not presented the issues in any of his grounds to either the
17
Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court.
18
III.
Failure to Exhaust Available State-Court Remedies
19
Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust
20
remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526
21
U.S. 838, 842 (1999). “In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an
22
opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas
23
petition.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. The failure to exhaust subjects the Petition to
24
dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983).
25
Before Petitioner may seek habeas corpus relief in this Court he must first present his
26
claims to the state courts and exhaust his state court remedies. The fact that release credits
27
28
-2-
1
are involved does not shield him from the exhaustion requirement.1 Petitioner states that he
2
has not presented his grounds for relief to the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona
3
Supreme Court. Thus, this habeas action is premature. The Court will dismiss the Petition
4
and this case without prejudice.
5
IT IS ORDERED:
6
(1)
Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.
7
(2)
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
8
(Doc. 1) and this case are dismissed without prejudice.
9
(3)
The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
10
(4)
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event
11
Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because
12
reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.
13
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
DATED this 6th day of December, 2011.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
A state-court petition for special action may be appropriate when the sentence has not
expired. See Crumrine v. Stewart, 24 P.3d 1281 (Ariz. App. 2001) (noting that trial court
had construed a state-court petition for habeas corpus regarding the application of earned
release credits as a petition for special action and stating that, in order to obtain special action
relief, the petitioner was required to show that the Director of the Arizona Department of
Corrections “failed to exercise his discretion, failed to perform a duty as to which he had no
discretion, or abused his discretion”). A state-court petition for post-conviction relief can be
used if “[t]he person is being held in custody after the sentence imposed has expired.” Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 32.1(d).
-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?