Neuendorf v. Ryan et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying Petitioner's January 30, 2014 and January 17, 2014 Motions Quo-Statu 30 and 32 . Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/21/2014.(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

John Calvin Neuendorf, II,

10
11
12

No. CV 12-755-PHX-RCB (DKD)

Petitioner,
vs.

ORDER

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Petitioner John Calvin Neuendorf, II, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

16

Complex-Eyman, filed pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas

17

Corpus by a Person in State Custody and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

18

On April 26, 2012, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and on May 4, 2012,

19

Petitioner filed a second Motion for Leave to Amend. In a June 29, 2012 Order, the

20

Court granted the Application to Proceed and granted Petitioner leave to file an amended

21

petition. On July 27, 2012, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition.

22

On September 10, 2012, the Court dismissed the Amended Petition and this action

23

because Petitioner had not exhausted state court remedies. Judgment was entered on the

24

same date.

25

Petitioner then filed a September 12, 2013 Amended Petition, a September 26,

26

2013 Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, an October 17, 2013 Motion

27

to Amend, and a December 4, 2013 Motion for Leave to Amend.

28

1

On December 30, 2013, the Court issued an order noting that this case is closed,

2

striking Petitioner’s September 12, 2013 Amended Petition, and denying as moot the

3

remaining motions.

4

On January 1, 2014 and January 14, 2014, Petitioner filed Motions titled “Quo-

5

Statu for: Habeas Corpus to include forma pauperis” in which it appears that Petitioner is

6

requesting new forms for filing documents in the case. This case is closed and the Court

7

will deny the Motions.

8

On January 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court

9

of Appeals. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the

10

Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not

11

find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

12

(2000).

13

IT IS ORDERED:

14
15
16

(1)

Petitioner’s January 30, 2014 and January 17, 2014 Motions “Quo-Statu”

(Docs. 30 and 32) are denied.
(2)

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the

17

Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not

18

find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

19

(2000).

20

DATED this 21st day of February, 2014.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-