Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01229/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01229-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Frederick King, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

 vs. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 14-1229-PHX-SMM (MHB) 

 O R D E R 

On June 4, 2014, Petitioner Frederick King, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se “Motion for Stay of Habeas Proceedings” and 

lodged a Proposed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On 

June 24, 2014, the Court gave Petitioner 30 days to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a 

complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That same day, the Clerk of Court 

filed Petitioner’s lodged Petition (Doc. 5). On August 11, 2014, the Clerk of Court 

dismissed this action without prejudice and entered judgment against Petitioner for 

failure to comply with the Court’s Order. On October 6, 2014, Petitioner paid the $5.00 

filing fee. The Court will vacate the Judgment entered on August 11, 2014, and order the 

Clerk of Court to reopen this action. The Court will require an answer to the Petition. 

I. Petition 

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, 

case #CR 2002-098228, of first-degree felony murder, attempted armed robbery, and two 

counts of attempted second-degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to multiple terms of 

Case 2:14-cv-01229-SMM Document 10 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

imprisonment, the longest of which is 25 years to life. In his Petition, Petitioner names 

Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional 

Respondent. Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner asserts a 

claim of actual innocence because the evidence at trial showed that he was acting in selfdefense. In Ground Two, Petitioner claims that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct 

during the trial. In Ground Three, Petitioner asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel. In Ground Four, Petitioner claims that the trial court abused its discretion 

when it denied Petitioner’s motion for judgment of acquittal. 

 It is not clear whether Petitioner presented the issues raised in Ground One to any 

Arizona appellate court. In the Petition, Petitioner asserts that he raised the issue of 

“actual innocence” in his second Rule 20 petition (Doc. 5 at 4), but then seems to indicate 

that this issue was not brought before the Arizona Court of Appeals (Doc. 5 at 6). 

However, even if the exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any 

unexhausted claims 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). Thus, the Court will require Respondents 

to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

 Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion 

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

dismissal of this action. 

B. Copies

 Because Petitioner is currently confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections 

unit subject to General Order 14-17, Petitioner is not required to serve Respondents with 

a copy of every document he files or to submit an additional copy of every filing for use 

Case 2:14-cv-01229-SMM Document 10 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

by the Court, as would ordinarily be required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and 

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.4. If Petitioner is transferred to a unit other than one 

subject to General Order 14-17, he will be notified of the requirements for service and 

copies for the Court that are required for inmates whose cases are not subject to General 

Order 14-17. 

C. Possible Dismissal

 If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 

these warnings, the Court may dismiss 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). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The Judgment entered August 11, 2014 (Doc. 7) is vacated. The Clerk of 

Court must re-open this case. 

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 5) 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, 547 U.S. 198, 209-11 (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. 

. . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01229-SMM Document 10 Filed 11/18/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

 (5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns 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 14th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01229-SMM Document 10 Filed 11/18/14 Page 4 of 4