Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00133/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00133-0/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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Harold Veston Fields, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

James Kimble, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-133-PHX-MHM (CRP)

ORDER

On January 22, 2008, Petitioner Harold Veston Fields, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner did not immediately pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

By Order filed February 5, 2008 (Doc. #3), Petitioner was given 30 days from the

filing date of the Order to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a completed Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

I. Payment of Filing Fee

On February 21, 2008, the $5.00 filing fee was paid (Doc. #4). Accordingly, the

Court will proceed to review the Petition.

II. Petition

Named as Respondent in the Petition is James Kimble, Deputy Warden. The Attorney

Case 2:08-cv-00133-MHM Document 5 Filed 06/24/08 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 1

Although Petitioner has not provided any supporting facts with Ground Four, the Court

presumes that he is relying on the supporting facts provided in Grounds One through Three.

TERMPSREF - 2 -

General of the State of Arizona is named as an Additional Respondent. 

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction on April 1, 2005, for

Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices and Theft, entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court

in matter CR2003-024924-001DT. Petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent 6-year terms

of imprisonment.

Petitioner presents four grounds in the Petition in support of his request for habeas

relief:

(1) “Denied adequate and effective assistance and representation of defense

counsel, after counsel sought me out as a client”;

(2) “Counsel erroneously advised Petitioner to change his plea agreement, stating

probation would be available”;

(3) “My counsel[’s] failure to prepare and advising me to enter a plea agreement

based on his stating that probation was possible and denied me the right to testify”;

(4) “Trial lawyer declined to provide Petitioner with due process and equal

protection of law.”1

Petitioner affirmatively alleges that he has presented the issue in Ground One to the

Arizona Court of Appeals. Petitioner alleges that he has not presented the issues in Grounds

Two through Four to the Arizona Court of Appeals. 

Although it appears that Petitioner has not properly exhausted Grounds Two through

Four in the state courts as required, it also appears that Petitioner may now be procedurally

barred from seeking review in the state courts, and therefore, no additional state remedies

remain open to him. 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. 

Case 2:08-cv-00133-MHM Document 5 Filed 06/24/08 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 -

III. 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 she 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) 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. 

(2) 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

Case 2:08-cv-00133-MHM Document 5 Filed 06/24/08 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 -

defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

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

answer.

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle 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 19th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00133-MHM Document 5 Filed 06/24/08 Page 4 of 4