Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08163/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08163-0/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 

SC 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jason Lawrence Sharp, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent. 

No. CV 13-8163-PCT-DGC (MEA) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Jason Lawrence Sharp, who is confined in the Central Arizona 

Correctional Facility in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will 

require an answer to the Petition. 

I. Petition 

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in Yavapai County Superior Court, case 

#CR2006-1544, of two counts of attempted sexual assault and was sentenced to a 7-year 

term of imprisonment. Petitioner indicates that his direct appeal was denied and that the 

Arizona Supreme Court denied review. He further indicates that his state petition for 

post-conviction relief was denied by the trial court and, on August 7, 2012, the Arizona 

Court of Appeals denied his petition for review. On February 15, 2013, the Arizona 

Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for review. 

Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent. Petitioner raises one ground for 

relief. Petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in 

Case 3:13-cv-08163-DJH Document 6 Filed 01/28/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 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) 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 

Case 3:13-cv-08163-DJH Document 6 Filed 01/28/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

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, 547 U.S. 198, 209-11 (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. 

 (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 Mark E. Aspey 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 28th day of January, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08163-DJH Document 6 Filed 01/28/14 Page 3 of 3