Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02514/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02514-0/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Medina, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Judy Friego, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2514-PHX-JAT (JI)

ORDER

On August 22, 2005, Petitioner George Medina, presently confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a

Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). Petitioner paid the five

dollar ($5.00) filing fee on August 25, 2005. Due to a clerical error, the Petition was

dismissed on October 26, 2005 for failure to pay the filing fee or file an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On October 31, 2005, Petitioner sent the Court a Notice of

Payment of Filing Fee and receipt for payment of the filing fee. On November 3, 2005,

Petitioner submitted another five dollars ($5.00) for payment of the filing fee.

The Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to reopen this action and refund five

dollars ($5.00) to Petitioner.

Case 2:05-cv-02514-JAT Document 6 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Petition

Judy Friego is named as a Respondent to the Petition and the Arizona Attorney

General is named as an additional Respondent. Petitioner challenges his June 25, 2002

judgment of conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CR 2001-013429,

for attempted murder and aggravated assault with a weapon. 

Petitioner alleges two grounds for relief in support of the Petition: 1) Petitioner's Fifth

Amendment due process rights were violated when the trial judge abused his discretion by

denying Petitioner's motion to exclude the term "premeditation" from the indictment; and 2)

Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when recordings of a police interview

conducted shortly after Petitioner's arrest were not made available to his attorneys for trial.

Petitioner alleges that Count I has been presented to the Arizona Supreme Court.

It is unclear from the face of the Petition whether Petitioner has properly exhausted

Count II. Exhuastion requires presentation to the Arizona Court of Appeals. See Swoopes

v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (when challenge is not to a life sentence or

capital sentence, exhaustion requires only fair presentation to the Arizona Court of Appeals),

cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1124 (2000). It also appears that further review of Petitioner’s claims

is not available in the state courts because the deadline for filing an appeal has passed.

Consequently, any unexhausted claim 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 claims were procedurally barred). An answer is therefore required. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to REOPEN this case;

(2) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to REFUND five dollars ($5.00) to

Petitioner, for overpayment of the filing fee;

Case 2:05-cv-02514-JAT Document 6 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

(3) A copy of the Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1) ("Petition") and this Order shall be SERVED by the

Clerk of the Court upon the Respondents by certified mail; 

(4) Respondents shall answer the Petition within forty (40) days of the date of service.

Respondent shall 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 constitute a waiver of the

defense. See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Morrison

v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir. 2005). If not limited to affirmative defenses,

the answer shall fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases;

(5) Petitioner may file a reply within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the

answer;

(6) A clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed SHALL

ACCOMPANY each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the

District Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. See Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 5.4. Failure to submit a copy along with the original pleading or document

will result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to

Petitioner;

(7) Petitioner SHALL SERVE upon Respondents, or if appearance has been entered

by counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted

for consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original document and copy,

to be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy

of the pleading or document was mailed to Respondents or the counsel. Any paper received

by a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the

Court may be disregarded by the Court; 

Case 2:05-cv-02514-JAT Document 6 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

(8) At all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner SHALL

IMMEDIATELY ADVISE the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address

and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF

ADDRESS.” The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the change of address

and its effective date, except that if Petitioner has been released from custody, the notice

should so indicate. The notice shall not include any motions for any other relief. Petitioner

shall serve a copy of the notice on all opposing parties. Failure to file a NOTICE OF

CHANGE OF ADDRESS may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b);

(9) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay Irwin for further proceedings and

a report and recommendation; and 

(10) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to Financial

Administration for the Phoenix Division of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02514-JAT Document 6 Filed 12/07/05 Page 4 of 4