Armstrong v. Ryan et al

Filing 152

ORDERED that Petitioner's 150 Motion to Defer Ruling for Ninety Days is granted. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 6/30/2023. (ARC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Shad Daniel Armstrong,
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

No. CV-15-00358-TUC-RM
DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Shad Daniel Armstrong’s Motion to Defer

16

Ruling for Ninety Days. (Doc. 150.) Noting the substantial length of many of the pleadings

17

in this matter, the legal complexities presented, and opposing counsel’s late appearance,

18

Respondents have indicated they do not object to the Motion. (Doc. 151.) For those

19

reasons, in addition to the recent developments in United States Supreme Court and

20

Arizona jurisprudence noted by Petitioner (see Doc. 150 (citing Cruz v. Arizona, 143 S. Ct.

21

650 (2023), Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022), and Arizona Attys. For Crim. Justice

22

v. Ducey, No. CV-17-01422-PHX-SPL, 2022 WL 16631088 (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2022)), the

23

Court will grant the Motion.

24

Accordingly,

25

....

26

....

27

....

28

....

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Defer Ruling for Ninety
Days (Doc. 150) is granted.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2023.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-