Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01870/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01870-0/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

 1 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of documents filed in this action.

JDDL-K

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry E. Amick, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Laura Schweitzer, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1870-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Larry E. Amick, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-Santa Rita in

Tucson, Arizona, has submitted a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, with a motion to exceed the page limit. (Doc.# 1, 2.)1

 He has paid the $5.00

filing fee. The Court will grant the motion to exceed the page limit and order Petitioner to

show cause why this action should not be summarily dismissed.

I. Procedural History

Petitioner challenges his conviction for aggravated assault and attempted aggravated

assault on a child, CR 1993-90724, pursuant to a guilty plea entered in Maricopa County

Superior Court. In his habeas petition, Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: (1) denial

of his right to appeal based on the state court’s dismissals of his successive petitions for postconviction relief; (2) violation of his equal protection rights by the refusal to apply State v.

Cooper, 166 Ariz. 126 (Ct. App. 1990) to him in his successive state post-conviction

petitions because he now suffers from life threatening medical conditions; and (3) violation

Case 2:06-cv-01870-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 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

JDDL-K - 2 -

of his Eighth Amendment rights based on the failure to treat his medical condition or release

him so that he can obtain treatment. 

II. Summary Dismissal Standard

The Court must undertake a prompt preliminary review of a habeas petition to

determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed

to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing § 2254

Cases, Rule 4; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,

the petition must be summarily dismissed. Id.; see also Obremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418,

420 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s summary dismissal as a matter of law pursuant

to Habeas Rule 4). “Congress envision[s] district courts taking an active role in summarily

disposing of facially defective habeas petitions,” Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127

(9th Cir. 1998), because “[i]t would waste scarce judicial resources for the district court to

cause the facially defective petition to be served on the State and to entertain the State’s

ensuing motion to dismiss,” id. at 1128.

III. Analysis

Federal habeas relief is available “only on the ground that [an inmate] is in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

Petitioner fails to allege legally cognizable violations of his federal constitutional rights in

his first two claims, and his third claim is not properly brought in a petition for habeas relief.

The Court will therefore order Petitioner to show cause why his Petition should not be

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

Petitioner’s first two claims concern the state court’s dismissal of his successive postconviction petitions submitted on the basis of “newly discovered” post-sentencing mitigating

evidence regarding his health. A § 2254 petition in this Court is not the appropriate means

for challenging the process afforded Petitioner in state post-conviction proceedings. See

Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045 (9th Cir. 1997); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2 26,

26 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Lambright v. Stewart, 191 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 1999).

Essentially, that is what Petitioner seeks in this case. Petitioner cites State v. Cooper, 166

Case 2:06-cv-01870-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 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

 2 In addition, it appears that the medical conditions Plaintiff asserts may have

developed after his sentencing. Even if not, federal habeas relief is unavailable for this

state-law claim.

JDDL-K - 3 -

Ariz. 126, 800 P.2d 992 (Ct. App. 1990), for the proposition that newly discovered evidence

regarding an inmate’s post-sentencing health is a mitigating factor that should be considered

by the state court. In Cooper, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that an inmate made a

colorable showing that he was entitled to state post-conviction relief regarding his sentence

based on newly discovered evidence that he had a terminal illness at the time of sentencing

because, under state law, health is a factor to be considered at sentencing. 166 Ariz. at 130,

800 P.2d at 996. But federal habeas relief is not available for errors of state law, and Cooper

is solely predicated on state law.2 Accordingly, Petitioner’s first two claims fail to state

viable claims for habeas relief. 

In his third claim, Petitioner appears to challenge a condition of his confinement,

namely, the alleged denial of appropriate medical care. While state inmates may seek

injunctive or compensatory relief based on unconstitutional conditions of confinement, they

must do so in an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not in a habeas petition. See

Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“constitutional claims that merely challenge

the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive

relief, fall outside [the] core [of habeas relief] and may be brought pursuant to § 1983”);

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any

confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . ;

requests for relief turning on the circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983

action.”); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (a civil rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of

confinement)). To the extent that Petitioner seeks relief for violation of his federal

constitutional rights based on the denial of appropriate medical care, he must seek such relief

by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Case 2:06-cv-01870-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 10/17/06 Page 3 of 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

JDDL-K - 4 -

The Court will allow Petitioner 30 days to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief.

Petitioner must submit a pleading entitled “Response” to this Order in which he establishes

cause why this action should not be dismissed. If Petitioner fails to submit a Response, this

action will be dismissed without further notice.

IV. Warnings

A. Address Changes 

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days before the move

is effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Petitioner must not include a motion for

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

B. Copies

Petitioner must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv

5.4. The Court may strike any filing that fails to comply with these requirements.

C. Possible Dismissal

Petitioner is warned that failure to timely comply with every provision of this Order,

including these warnings, may result in dismissal of 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) Petitioner’s motion to exceed the page limit is granted. (Doc.# 1.)

(2) Petitioner must show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for

failure to state a legally cognizable habeas claim no later than 30 days from the filing date

of this Order.

Case 2:06-cv-01870-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 10/17/06 Page 4 of 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

JDDL-K - 5 -

(3) If Petitioner fails to file a Response within 30 days of the filing date of this Order,

the Clerk of Court will dismiss this action without further notice.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01870-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 10/17/06 Page 5 of 5