Ludeman v. Ryan et al
ORDER The Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) and this case are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Peti tioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/5/2013. (KMG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Roger David Ludeman,
No. CV 12-2673-PHX-DGC (SPL)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Petitioner Roger David Ludeman, who is confined in the Central Arizona
Correctional Facility, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee. The Court will dismiss the Petition
Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR 1999-
092731, of two counts of Attempted Sexual Conduct with a Minor Under the Age of 12
and was sentenced to a 15-year term of imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner names
Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional
Respondent. Petitioner raises three grounds for relief. He also alleges that he has a
petition for review pending in the Arizona Supreme Court.
Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must
exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). “In other words, the state prisoner must give the
state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a
federal court in a habeas petition.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. The failure to exhaust
subjects the Petition to dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir.
If a prisoner has post-conviction proceedings pending in state court, the federal
exhaustion requirement is not satisfied. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634
(9th Cir. 1983) (pending appeal); Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir. 1964)
(pending post-conviction proceeding).
pending state-court challenge before proceeding in federal court, “even where the issue to
be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts.”
Sherwood, 716 F.3d at 634.
conviction or sentence and, therefore, could ultimately affect or moot these proceedings.
The prisoner must await the outcome of the
The pending state-court proceeding could affect the
In light of Petitioner’s pending petition for review, the Petition is premature and
must be dismissed. See id.; Schnepp. The Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED:
The Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and this case are dismissed
The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the
event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability
because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Dated this 5th day of March, 2013.
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?