Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01189/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01189-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Augustin Vasquez-Mendoza,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-01189-PHX-PGR (JFM)

 ORDER

 

 

The petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 on June 5, 2012. On October 31, 2012, the respondents filed a

Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice or, in the

Alternative, to Hold Petition in Abeyance Pending Exhaustion of State Court

Remedies (Doc. 12), wherein they argued that the petition was not then ripe for

adjudication because the fact that the petitioner still had a supplemental petition for

post-conviction relief pending before the Arizona Court of Appeals made it

impossible for the respondents to determine whether the petitioner had properly

exhausted the claims raised in his § 2254 petition. On November 26, 2012, the

petitioner filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Pending Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 16). On February 26, 2013, the respondents filed a Court-ordered

Case 2:12-cv-01189-PGR Document 28 Filed 09/30/13 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

- 2 -

supplement to their motion wherein they stated that the Arizona Court of Appeals

had denied the petitioner’s petition for review on January 4, 2013, but that the

petitioner had filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court and that

petition was then still pending. On April 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued

a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25), wherein he recommended that this action

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies based on his

conclusion that the petitioner had not fairly presented any of the claims in his § 2254

petition to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The petitioner did not file any objections to

the Report and Recommendation, although on May 22, 2013 he did file a Notification

of Exhaustion of State Remedies (Doc. 26), wherein he stated that all of the pending

state issues had been exhausted because the Arizona Supreme Court had denied

his petition for review on May 14, 2013.

Because it appears that the issue of exhaustion of remedies was not fully

briefed by the parties prior to the issuance of the Report and Recommendation due

to the fact that the petitioner’s state court proceedings had not then been completed,

the Court concludes that this action should be referred to Magistrate Judge Metcalf

for whatever further proceedings may now be appropriate in light of the completion

of the state court proceedings. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice or, in the Alternative, to Hold Petition in Abeyance

Pending Exhaustion of State Court Remedies (Doc. 12), the petitioner’s Motion to

Hold in Abeyance the Pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 16), and the

petitioner’s Request for Status on Report and Recommendation on Motion to

Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 27) are all denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25)

Case 2:12-cv-01189-PGR Document 28 Filed 09/30/13 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

- 3 -

is rejected without prejudice and that this action is referred to Magistrate Judge

Metcalf for further proceedings.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01189-PGR Document 28 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 3