Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00892/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00892-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Scott Lee DeShaw, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00892-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the 

Magistrate Judge recommending that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

(Doc. 13). The R&R makes this recommendation because the Petition in this case is a 

second or successive petition filed without permission from the Court of Appeals to file 

another case. (Doc. 13 at 3). 

 Prior to filing the Petition in this case, Petitioner filed a request for leave to file a 

second or successive petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 13 at 3). 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointed Petitioner counsel for that case. His 

counsel in that case has now filed a motion to be appointed as his counsel in this case and 

in any ancillary state court proceedings. (Doc. 14). 

 In the motion for appointment, counsel correctly recounts that one factor the court 

should consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel is Petitioner’s likelihood of 

success on the merits. (Doc. 14 at 2). Counsel then argues that Petitioner’s Miller claim 

is likely to succeed on the merits. (Doc. 14 at 2-3). However, counsel makes no 

Case 2:15-cv-00892-JAT Document 17 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

argument that this Court will ever reach the Miller claim in this case. In other words, 

counsel makes no argument that would overcome the R&R’s conclusion that this Court is 

without jurisdiction to hear this case. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the 

substance of Petitioner’s Miller claim; the Court sees no likelihood of success in this 

case. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 14) is denied 

in full. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for status conference (Doc. 16) is 

denied. 

IT IS FINALY ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (Doc. 15) is 

granted such that Petitioner has until January 6, 2017, to file his objections to the R&R 

(Doc. 13). 

 Dated this 21st day of December, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00892-JAT Document 17 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 2