Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01193/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01193-2/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

Phillip Wayne Jordan, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro; Terry Goddard, Attorney

General , 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1193-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently pending before this Court is Petitioner Phillip Wayne Jordan's petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which Petitioner challenges his 

conviction (Doc. 1). By way of plea agreement, Petitioner was convicted of possession of

chemicals and equipment to manufacture dangerous drugs and with Petitioner's prior 

convictions, he was sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner has filed the

instant Writ of Habeas Corpus claiming the following three grounds for relief: (1) his 

sentence was based upon aggravating factors that were not determined by a jury; (2) the 

terms of the plea agreement were violated by the imposition of an aggravated sentence; and

(3) the trial court failed to properly consider mitigating factors. Respondent has filed an 

Answer and asserts that Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed because 

Petitioner's claims are now moot due to his unconditional release from prison, because 

Petitioner failed to inform the Court of his current change of address, and because the 

Case 2:06-cv-01193-MHM Document 23 Filed 05/30/07 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

- 2 -

petition was filed untimely. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge 

David K. Duncan who has issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending

that the Court deny and dismiss Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice (Doc. 21).

Petitioner did not file an objection to Judge Duncan's R&R. 

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and 

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. Id.

 DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims three bases for habeas corpus relief. However, all of Petitioner's claims

are barred based on three arguments. First, Petitioner's case is likely now moot. Federal 

courts lack jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions unless the petitioner is "under the 

conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed." Maleng v. Cook, 490 

U.S. 488, 490-491 (1989). However, a completion of a sentence does not necessarily make

a case moot due to the fact that the petitioner may continue to suffer collateral consequences

from the conviction. Carafas v. LaValle, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1968). This rule is not 

applicable in petitioner's case because it does not apply when the petitioner is only disputing

a sentence that has been fully served. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631-633 (1982); 

Aaron v. Pepperas, 790 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir. 1986).

Second, Petitioner's request for habeas relief is barred because he failed to notify the 

Court of his change of address. On May 1, 2006 and on November 16, 2006, the Court 

ordered Petitioner that he must file a notice of change of address 10 days before the move

is effective, and that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action. See Ferdik v. 

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

an action for failure to comply with any order of the court). Petitioner has not filed a change

of address and mailed copies of the Court's March 6, 2007 Order have been returned. 

Additionally, Petitioner's claim was filed untimely. Petitioner had one year to file a Writ

of Habeas Corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner's conviction became

Case 2:06-cv-01193-MHM Document 23 Filed 05/30/07 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

- 3 -

final on July 8, 2002 and, absent any tolling, his federal petition was due on July 9, 2003. 

Petitioner's first Rule 32 post-conviction petition was not filed until August 14, 2004 and was

dismissed by the trial court as untimely. Petitioner argues that he is nevertheless entitled to

relief under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Judge Duncan stated in his Report

and Recommendation that Petitioner's conviction was final before the Supreme Court's 

decision in Blakely and that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral 

review. See Schardt v. Payne, 414 F. 3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir. 2005). This Court agrees with

Judge Duncan's Report and Recommendation and finds that Blakely does not apply in 

Petitioner's case. 

 

 CONCLUSION

The Court finds no grounds upon which to grant Petitioner's Writ for Habeas Corpus 

relief. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts Judge Duncan's Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 21) in its entirety as the Order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 29th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01193-MHM Document 23 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 3