Qualls v. Ryan et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 1 Motion to file an oversized brief. Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus (originally attached to Doc. 1 ) and this case are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this ca se. 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). (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 7/23/13. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 2 SC WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 William Kenneth Qualls, 10 No. CV 13-1288-PHX-JAT (DKD) Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 Charles Ryan, et al., ORDER 13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner William Kenneth Qualls, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex, South Unit, in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Request for Oversized 17 Brief and Filing and lodged a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will grant the 19 motion to file an oversized brief but will dismiss the Petition as premature. 20 I. Petition 21 Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Maricopa County Superior Court, case 22 #CR2003-007036, of six counts of sexual conduct with a minor, one count of attempted 23 sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of child molestation, and one count of 24 kidnapping and was sentenced to an 89-year term of imprisonment. 1 The Arizona Court 25 of Appeals issued its mandate denying appellate relief on June 29, 2005. 2 Petitioner’s 26 27 28 1 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102003/m1157459. pdf and http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112003/m1196772.pdf (last visited July 3, 3013). 2 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082009/m3823860. 1 first state post-conviction proceeding was dismissed on January 20, 2006, after Petitioner 2 failed to file a pro se Rule 32 petition. 3 On July 27, 2009, Petitioner’s second, untimely 3 Rule 32 post-conviction proceeding was dismissed.4 On January 28, 2010, a third Rule 4 32 proceeding was dismissed.5 5 proceeding was dismissed.6 According to records available on-line, three petitions for 6 review from the denial of post-conviction relief are pending in the Arizona Court of 7 Appeals.7 8 II. On August 4, 2010, Petitioner’s fourth Rule 32 Discussion 9 Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must 10 exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. 11 Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). “In other words, the state prisoner must give the 12 state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a 13 federal court in a habeas petition.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. The failure to exhaust 14 subjects the Petition to dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 15 1983). 16 If a prisoner has post-conviction proceedings pending in state court, the federal 17 exhaustion requirement is not satisfied. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 18 (9th Cir. 1983) (pending appeal); Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir. 1964) 19 (pending post-conviction proceeding). 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The prisoner must await the outcome of the pdf (last visited July 3, 2013). 3 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012006/m2085357. pdf (last visited July 3, 2013). 4 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082009/m3823860. pdf (last visited July 3, 2013). 5 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012010/m4070266. pdf (last visited July 3, 2013). 6 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082010/m4333329. pdf (last visited July 3, 2013). 7 See http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/1ca/1capartyindex.htm, case 1CACR12-0253-PRPC, 1CA-CR12-0402-PRPC, and 1CA-CR12-0756-PRPC (last visited July 3, 2013). -2- 1 pending state-court challenge before proceeding in federal court, “even where the issue to 2 be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts.” 3 Sherwood, 716 F.3d at 634. 4 conviction or sentence and, therefore, could ultimately affect or moot these proceedings. 5 Id. The pending state-court proceedings could affect the 6 In light of Petitioner’s pending petitions for review from the denial of state post- 7 conviction relief, the Petition is premature and must be dismissed. See id.; Schnepp. The 8 Court will dismiss the case without prejudice. 9 IT IS ORDERED: 10 (1) Petitioner’s request to file an oversized brief is granted. (Doc. 1.) 11 (2) Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus (originally attached to Doc. 1) and 12 this case are dismissed without prejudice. 13 (3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 14 (4) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 15 event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 16 because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 17 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 18 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2013. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?