Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00595/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00595-0/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 SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Alan Myers, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0595-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Petitioner George Alan Myers, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex,

South Unit, in Florence, Arizona , has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner has also filed an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which will be denied as moot. The Court will

require an answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement in Maricopa County Superior

Court, case #CR2005-129701, of two counts each of sexual abuse and attempted child

molestation, and one count of sexual conduct with a minor and was sentenced to a 20-year

term of imprisonment followed by lifetime probation. In his Petition, Petitioner names

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

Respondent. 

Petitioner raises three grounds for relief. In Ground I, he alleges that Arizona’s

sentencing scheme as applied to him violated his federal constitutional rights. In Ground II,

Case 2:10-cv-00595-JWS Document 4 Filed 04/07/10 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

Petitioner alleges violation of his federal due process rights because his sentence is illegal.

In Ground III, Petitioner alleges that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel under

the Sixth Amendment. 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

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

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) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot.

(Doc.# 3.) 

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. #1) 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. 

Case 2:10-cv-00595-JWS Document 4 Filed 04/07/10 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

(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, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (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.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin 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 5th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00595-JWS Document 4 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 3