Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02180/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02180-0/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

RP

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joshua DeRoche, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2180-PHX-DGC (JFM)

ORDER

Petitioner Joshua DeRoche, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3), and an “Inmate Bank

Account” statement (Doc. 4). The Court will dismiss the Petition and this case without

prejudice.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and “Inmate Bank Account”

statement indicate that his inmate trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

II. Petition

Named as Respondent in the Petition is Charles L. Ryan. The Attorney General of

the State of Arizona is named in the Petition as an Additional Respondent.

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his custody on his judgment of conviction on

Case 2:11-cv-02180-DGC--JFM Document 6 Filed 12/06/11 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

- 2 -

June 8, 2007, for Kidnapping, entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court in matter

CR2004-010688-001 DT. Petitioner alleges he was sentenced to a 9.25-year term of

imprisonment from June 8, 2007, with 1,263 days of presentence incarceration credit.

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

relief:

(1) “The Institutional Classification Committee repeatedly

delays hearing review dates, in violation of the Due Process

Clause[,] 14th Amendment[,] U.S. Constitution”; 

(2) “The Institutional Classification Committee does not

allow restoration of forfeited release credits to maximum

custody inmates, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause,

14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution”; and

(3) “The Institutional Classification Committee does not

allow restoration of forfeited release credits to inmates without

access to ETV (Eyman Television), in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause, 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.” Petitioner seeks the “[w]hole or partial restoration, at the Court’s discretion, of

approximately one hundred and ten (110) forfeited release credits” and alleges that his

available administrative remedies within the prison have been exhausted. However,

Petitioner also alleges that he has not presented the issues in any of his grounds to either the

Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court.

III. Failure to Exhaust Available State-Court Remedies

Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust

remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526

U.S. 838, 842 (1999). “In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an

opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas

petition.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. The failure to exhaust subjects the Petition to

dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983).

Before Petitioner may seek habeas corpus relief in this Court he must first present his

claims to the state courts and exhaust his state court remedies. The fact that release credits

Case 2:11-cv-02180-DGC--JFM Document 6 Filed 12/06/11 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

 1A state-court petition for special action may be appropriate when the sentence has not

expired. See Crumrine v. Stewart, 24 P.3d 1281 (Ariz. App. 2001) (noting that trial court

had construed a state-court petition for habeas corpus regarding the application of earned

release credits as a petition for special action and stating that, in order to obtain special action

relief, the petitioner was required to show that the Director of the Arizona Department of

Corrections “failed to exercise his discretion, failed to perform a duty as to which he had no

discretion, or abused his discretion”). A state-court petition for post-conviction relief can be

used if “[t]he person is being held in custody after the sentence imposed has expired.” Ariz.

R. Crim. P. 32.1(d).

- 3 -

are involved does not shield him from the exhaustion requirement.1 Petitioner states that he

has not presented his grounds for relief to the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona

Supreme Court. Thus, this habeas action is premature. The Court will dismiss the Petition

and this case without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.

(2) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. 1) and this case are dismissed without prejudice.

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

(4) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 6th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-02180-DGC--JFM Document 6 Filed 12/06/11 Page 3 of 3