Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02467/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02467-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

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 TERMPSREF

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Dewayne Davis, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2467-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

Petitioner Kenneth Dewayne Davis, confined in the Arizona State Prison in Douglas,

Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will order an answer.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust

account balance is less than $25.00. An excess of $25.00 requires payment of the filing fee.

LRCiv 3.5(b). Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted.

II. Procedural History

In his Petition, Petitioner has named Dora B. Schriro as Respondent and the Arizona

Attorney General as an additional Respondent. Petitioner challenges his July 5, 2000

judgment of conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR-99-006636, for four

counts of sale or transfer of narcotic drugs. Petitioner alleges two grounds for relief.

Case 2:06-cv-02467-SMM Document 3 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

In Ground One, Petitioner contends that he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment

right to effective assistance of counsel during the plea bargaining process. In Ground Two,

Petitioner contends that he was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a jury

determination of all elements utilized in sentencing.

Petitioner asserts that he has exhausted the claims. Even assuming that the exhaustion

requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted claim may be procedurally

barred. In light of the possibility of procedural bar, a summary dismissal would be

inappropriate. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989) (remanding where

petitioner failed to exhaust claims and it was not clear whether the claims were procedurally

barred). Accordingly, an answer is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

III. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days before the move

is effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Petitioner must not include a motion for

other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal.

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must be accompanied

by a certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also,

Petitioner must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4.

The Court may strike any filing that fails to comply with these requirements.

C. Possible Dismissal

Petitioner is warned that failure to timely comply with every provision of this Order,

including these warnings, may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an

action for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:06-cv-02467-SMM Document 3 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Petition,

is granted.

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. #1) and this Order

on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(3) Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service.

Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but may file an answer

limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, statute of limitations,

procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, only

those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be attached to the answer.

Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be treated as a waiver of the

defense. Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (2006). If not limited to affirmative

defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

(4) Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

answer.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis pursuant to

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a

report and recommendation.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02467-SMM Document 3 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 3