Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00943/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00943-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Salvador Sanchez Macias, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-00943-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 On May 6, 2013, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus claiming 

that his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court 

changed the plea agreement without his knowledge or permission, by the prosecutors 

misrepresentation of Arizona statutes in the plea agreement, and because Petitioner’s 

counsel was ineffective for not objecting to changes in the plea agreement. Petitioner 

also alleged a second ground which was dismissed on screening because Petitioner failed 

to assert a violation of the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. In Ground 

Two Petitioner states that the question before the Court was whether Arizona Rule 32.3 

was unconstitutional “due to the fact that it innates the suspension of a writ of habeas 

corpus to Arizona state prisoners?” (Doc. 1, Pet’r’s Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6.) 

 Respondents filed a response to the petition on September 26, 2013 and Petitioner 

filed a reply/traverse on October 7, 2013. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation on December 18, 2013 recommending that the petition be dismissed 

without prejudice. 

Case 2:13-cv-00943-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 The record reflects and Petitioner does not dispute that there is a pending Petition 

for Review before the Arizona Court of Appeals of the dismissal of Petitioner’s state 

court Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The sole ground raised in the state court 

petition was a claim of newly discovered evidence. 

 As the Magistrate Judge noted and as Respondents argued the claims Petitioner 

raises before this Court have never been presented to the state court. Petitioner argues 

that this court should resolved the questions in any event, even though he has not 

presented them to the state court. The Magistrate Judge rejected Petitioner’s contention 

that this Court has the authority to bypass state remedies and recommended that this 

petition be dismissed without prejudice to allow the conclusion of the state court 

proceedings. 

 Petitioner filed timely written objections on January 10, 2014, in which he claims 

that this Court must determine if state officers committed an unethical judicial act or 

committed a criminal act and violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights and substantive 

due process rights in connection with his allegation that the plea agreement was changed 

and that the prosecutor made misrepresentations about Arizona statutes and the plea 

agreement. Petitioner’s objection also states that the Court should determine issues 

related to the federal statute of limitations. 

 Petitioner’s objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge explained in the 

Report and Recommendation why exhaustion in state court is required before the issues 

raised in this petition are brought to federal court. The Magistrate Judge also found that 

there was no apparent prejudice to Petitioner from a dismissal without prejudice 

explaining that Petitioner would have at least six months of his one-year limitation period 

remaining upon the conclusion of his state court proceedings. 

 This Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

that dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy in this case because it cannot 

be disputed that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claims in state court and that he still 

has state court proceedings pending. 

Case 2:13-cv-00943-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/31/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections of the Petitioner to the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court. (Doc. 16) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 1) 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability because jurist 

of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its procedural 

ruling. 

 Dated this 31st day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00943-SRB Document 18 Filed 01/31/14 Page 3 of 3