Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08067/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08067-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Monta Joe Evans, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-08067-PCT-DLR (BSB)

REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner Monta Joe Evans has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by 

Person in State Custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Respondents have filed 

a limited answer asserting that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner’s “ofright” post-conviction proceeding is pending in state court. (Docs. 13, 14.) Petitioner 

opposes Respondents’ assertion and argues that the Court should consider the merits of 

his claims. (Doc. 15.) 

I. Factual and Procedural Background 

A. Guilty Plea, Sentencing, and Rule 32 Proceeding 

 On April 28, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in the 

Mohave County Superior Court to one count of aggravated assault, one count of 

aggravated driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and one count of criminal 

damage. (Doc. 13, Exs. B, C.) On May 17, 2015, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a 

total of eighteen-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. (Doc. 13, Ex. C.) 

 

Case 3:16-cv-08067-DLR Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

 Because he pleaded guilty, Petitioner’s only avenue of direct review was an “ofright” proceeding under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is 

the functional equivalent of a direct appeal. See Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 715-

16 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that Arizona courts consider Rule 32 of-right proceedings a 

form of direct review); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(B) ([I]n noncapital cases a 

defendant may not appeal from a judgment or sentence that is entered pursuant to a plea 

agreement . . . .”); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1 (“[a]ny person who pled guilty or no 

contest . . . shall have the right to file a post-conviction relief proceeding known as a Rule 

32 of-right proceeding”); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (providing that a Rule 32 of-right 

proceeding must be filed within ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence). 

 On June 11, 2015, Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief in the trial 

court.1

 The court appointed Petitioner counsel. (Doc. 13, Ex. D.) On May 20, 2016, 

counsel notified the trial court that, after reviewing all relevant materials, he could find 

no claim to present in a petition. (Id.) On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted Petitioner 

forty-five days from the date of the order to file a pro se petition. (Doc. 13, Ex. A.) The 

court also ordered the Mohave County Public Defender’s Office to act as advisory 

counsel. (Id.) To date, Petitioner has not filed his petition in the trial court. 

B. Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

 On March 31, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 

Court. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner asserts a double jeopardy claim under the Fifth Amendment 

(Ground One), and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment 

(Ground Two). (Id.) 

II. Exhaustion 

 Before the federal 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. 

 

1

 The Court obtained this date from the Mohave County Superior Court’s “Public Access to Court Information” for case number S-8015-CR-201401250, State of Arizona 

v. Monta Joe Evans. See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov.publicaccess/ca. The Court 

can take judicial notice of this type of information. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 

F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001) (the court can take judicial of matters of public record). 

Case 3:16-cv-08067-DLR Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). A petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies 

if he has a state appeal pending at the time he files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

federal court. Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (stating that 

“[w]hen . . . an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would be habeas corpus 

petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted, 

even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled 

in the state courts.”); Martineau v. Elliot, 2008 WL 3582811, * 1 (D. Ariz. August 13, 

2008) (dismissing habeas corpus petition as premature when the petitioner presently had 

a Rule-32 petition pending in the Maricopa County Superior Court). 

 The record reflects that Petitioner has a Rule 32 of-right proceeding pending in 

state court, which is the functional equivalent of a direct appeal. See Summers, 481 F.3d 

at 715-16. Petitioner disputes Respondents’ description of that proceeding as having just 

begun, but does not dispute that it is still pending. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Considering the 

pending Rule 32 “of-right” proceeding, which could affect Petitioner’s convictions and 

which could also ultimately affect these proceedings, it is inappropriate for this Court to 

rule on Petitioner’s claims at this time. See Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634; Henderson v. 

Johnson, 710 F.3d 872, (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that “Sherwood stands for the proposition 

that a district court may not adjudicate a federal habeas petition while a petitioner’s direct 

state appeal is pending.”). Additionally, Petitioner will suffer no prejudice as a result of a 

dismissal without prejudice. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487 (2000) (holding 

that a petition filed after a petition has been dismissed for failure to exhaust before the 

district court adjudicated any claims is not a second or successive petition.). Because this 

habeas corpus proceeding is premature, the Court recommends that the Petition be 

dismissed without prejudice.2

 

 

2

 The parties do not address whether the Court should stay the Petition and hold it in abeyance in accordance with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

However, the Court does not recommend that procedure in this case. In accordance with 

Rhines, the Supreme Court recognizes that petitioners who are “reasonably confused” about timeliness rules may file “protective” petitions in federal court and ask the court to stay and abey the federal habeas corpus proceedings under Rhines until the state remedies 

are exhausted. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416 (2005). By protectively filing a 

Case 3:16-cv-08067-DLR Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a certificate of appealability and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling 

debatable. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties have fourteen days within which to 

file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 habeas corpus petition, a petitioner may comply with the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas corpus petitions. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). Here, because 

Petitioner’s Rule 32 “of-right” proceeding, a form of direct appeal, is still pending, the one-year limitations period has not commenced and, therefore, there is no need to hold 

this proceeding in abeyance to prevent a statute of limitations problem. See 28 U.S.C. 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Thus, dismissing the Petition under the circumstances of this case 

will not prejudice Petitioner. 

Case 3:16-cv-08067-DLR Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate 

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of 

fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 

 Dated this 14th day of June, 2016. 

 

Case 3:16-cv-08067-DLR Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 Page 5 of 5