Vasquez-Mendoza v. Ryan et al
Filing
28
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the respondents' Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice or, in the Alternative, to Hold Petition in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Court Remedies (Doc. 12 ), the petitioner 9;s Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 16 ), and the petitioner's Request for Status on Report and Recommendation on Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 27 ) are all denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25 ) is rejected without prejudice and that this action is referred to Magistrate Judge Metcalf for further proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 9/30/13. (LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Augustin Vasquez-Mendoza,
Petitioner,
11
12
13
14
15
vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-12-01189-PHX-PGR (JFM)
ORDER
16
The petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
17
U.S.C. § 2254 on June 5, 2012. On October 31, 2012, the respondents filed a
18
Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice or, in the
19
Alternative, to Hold Petition in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Court
20
Remedies (Doc. 12), wherein they argued that the petition was not then ripe for
21
adjudication because the fact that the petitioner still had a supplemental petition for
22
post-conviction relief pending before the Arizona Court of Appeals made it
23
impossible for the respondents to determine whether the petitioner had properly
24
exhausted the claims raised in his § 2254 petition. On November 26, 2012, the
25
petitioner filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Pending Petition for Writ of Habeas
26
Corpus (Doc. 16). On February 26, 2013, the respondents filed a Court-ordered
1
supplement to their motion wherein they stated that the Arizona Court of Appeals
2
had denied the petitioner’s petition for review on January 4, 2013, but that the
3
petitioner had filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court and that
4
petition was then still pending. On April 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued
5
a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25), wherein he recommended that this action
6
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies based on his
7
conclusion that the petitioner had not fairly presented any of the claims in his § 2254
8
petition to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The petitioner did not file any objections to
9
the Report and Recommendation, although on May 22, 2013 he did file a Notification
10
of Exhaustion of State Remedies (Doc. 26), wherein he stated that all of the pending
11
state issues had been exhausted because the Arizona Supreme Court had denied
12
his petition for review on May 14, 2013.
13
Because it appears that the issue of exhaustion of remedies was not fully
14
briefed by the parties prior to the issuance of the Report and Recommendation due
15
to the fact that the petitioner’s state court proceedings had not then been completed,
16
the Court concludes that this action should be referred to Magistrate Judge Metcalf
17
for whatever further proceedings may now be appropriate in light of the completion
18
of the state court proceedings. Therefore,
19
IT IS ORDERED that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of
20
Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice or, in the Alternative, to Hold Petition in Abeyance
21
Pending Exhaustion of State Court Remedies (Doc. 12), the petitioner’s Motion to
22
Hold in Abeyance the Pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 16), and the
23
petitioner’s Request for Status on Report and Recommendation on Motion to
24
Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 27) are all denied as moot.
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25)
26
-2-
1
is rejected without prejudice and that this action is referred to Magistrate Judge
2
Metcalf for further proceedings.
3
DATED this 30th day of September, 2013.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-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?