Wood v. Ryan

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for a Stay of Execution. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 7/20/14.(MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11

Joseph Rudolph Wood, III,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

vs.

No. CV-14-2236-TUC-JGZ
Death Penalty Case
Order

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

16
17
18
19
20

Petitioner Joseph Wood is an Arizona death row inmate. His execution is
scheduled for July 23, 2014. On Friday, July 18, 2014, he filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Motion for Stay of Execution in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

21
22

(Doc. 1.) The Court of Appeals transferred the case to this Court pursuant to Fed. R.

23

App. P. 22(a). (Id., Ex. 1.)

24

Petitioner seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He claims that the Arizona

25
26

Supreme Court unconstitutionally rejected mitigating evidence by applying a causal

27

connection test. See Tennard v. Dretke, 524 U.S. 37 (2004). He seeks a stay of his

28
1

1

execution pending the outcome of en banc review in McKinney v. Ryan, No. 09-99018

2
3
4

(9th Cir.), which will address the question of whether “Tennard error” is subject to
harmless error review.

5

Petitioner’s § 2241 petition will be denied. Section 2254 is the exclusive avenue

6
7
8
9

for state prisoners to challenge the legality of their imprisonment pursuant to the
judgment of a state court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662 (1996) (“Our
authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners is limited by § 2254.”); Rittenberry v.

10
11

Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 336 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[I]f a habeas petition could so easily avoid

12

the strict requirements of AEDPA, nobody would file under section 2254, and the

13

statute would become a nullity”); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1287, 1287 (9th Cir.

14
15

1997) (“The Supreme Court has instructed us that the authority of the federal courts to

16

grant habeas relief to state prisoners under § 2241 is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”);

17
18

Stotts v. Luna, 46 Fed.Appx. 523 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Although Petitioner styles his

19

petition as one under section 2241, he is, as a state prisoner, limited by the restrictions

20

of 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”).

21
22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26
27

///
///

28
2

1

Accordingly,

2
3
4
5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
and Motion for a Stay of Execution is DENIED. (Doc. 1.)
Dated this 20th day of July, 2014.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3