Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00706/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00706-0/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

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeff Michael Welch, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-706-PHX-NVW (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person in

State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (docket # 1) Petitioner raises three grounds for

relief: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the sentencing court imposed an

illegally aggravated sentence based on factors that were not found by a jury; and (3) the trial

court permitted improper evidence at trial. (docket # 1) Respondents have filed a Motion to

Dismiss because Petitioner has ongoing post-conviction proceedings before the Arizona courts.

(docket # 11) Respondents alternatively request that the matter be stayed pending resolution

of Petitioner’s state court proceedings. (Id.) The Court directed Petitioner to file a response to

Respondents’ motion on or before July 31, 2009. (docket # 12) Despite the Court’s order,

Petitioner has not responded. 

I. Background

In 2003, Petitioner was convicted in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County,

case number CR-2001-097224, of two counts of child molestation and was sentenced to

consecutive 35-year terms of imprisonment. (docket # 1) 

Case 2:09-cv-00706-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/10/09 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

- 2 -

Petitioner sought direct review in the Arizona Court of Appeals, No. 1 CA-CR03-0470, which was denied on October 27, 2005. (docket # 1 at 2) Thereafter, Petitioner

filed a petition for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32, in Maricopa

Superior Court No. CR-2001-097224. (docket # 1 at 4) The trial court denied relief on or

about March 30, 2007. (Id.) On May 28, 2008, Petitioner appealed that decision to the

Arizona Court of Appeals in case number 1 CA-CR 08-0423. (docket # 11, Exh. A) The

record reflects that Petitioner’s appeal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief

is pending before the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Id.) On July 9, 2009, Respondents filed a

Request for Determination of Pending Matter in the appellate court requesting resolution of

Petitioner’s appeal. (docket # 11, Exh. B) To date, the appeal remains pending. Because

Petitioner’s post-conviction action is pending before the State court, Respondents have

moved to dismiss, or stay, this action. Petitioner has not responded. 

II. Exhaustion

Before the federal 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 cases not carrying the death penalty, claims are

exhausted once the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196

F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.1999).

A petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies if he has a state appeal or

post-conviction proceeding pending at the time he files a petition for writ of habeas corpus

in federal court. Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); Schnepp v.

Oregon, 333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (stating that state prisoner did not exhaust state

remedies where post-conviction proceeding was pending in state courts); Martineau v.

Elliot, 2008 WL 3582811, * 1 (D.Ariz., August 13, 2008) (denying habeas corpus petition as

premature where petitioner presently had a Rule-32 petition pending in the Maricopa County

Superior Court).

In view of the pending proceeding in state court, which could affect Petitioner’s

convictions and which could also ultimately affect these proceedings, it is inappropriate for

Case 2:09-cv-00706-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/10/09 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

 1 It appears that the AEDPA statute of limitations has not run and that it will be tolled while

Petitioner pursues his post-conviction proceedings in state court. The Court, however, does not

offer any opinion regarding the statute of limitations and is not obligated to advise Petitioner

regarding that issue. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004) (holding that federal district

judges are not required to give pro se litigants warnings regarding the statute of limitations.) 

District judges are not obligated to act as counsel to pro se litigants. McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465

U.S. 168, 183-184 (1984) (stating that “[a] defendant does not have a constitutional right to

receive personal instruction from the trial judge on courtroom procedure” and that “the

Constitution [does not] require judges to take over chores for a pro se defendant that would

normally be attended to by trained counsel as a matter of course.”).

- 3 -

this Court to rule on Petitioner’s claims at this time. Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634 (stating that

even where claim to be challenged has been finally settled in state courts, petitioner must

await outcome of his appeal in state court before remedies are exhausted).

Petitioner will suffer no prejudice as a result of a dismissal without prejudice. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487 (2000) (holding that a petition filed after a mixed

petition has been dismissed for failure to exhaust before the district court adjudicated any

claims is not a second or successive petition.)1

 Because this habeas action is premature, the Court will dismiss the Petition

without prejudice. Respondents alternatively request that the Court stay the petition and

hold it in abeyance in accordance with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). 

Because the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate, the Court

recommends that the alternative request to stay be denied. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss

(docket # 11) be GRANTED and that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by

Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (docket # 1) be DISMISSED without

prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondents’ alternative Motion to

Stay and Abey the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (docket # 11) be DENIED as moot. 

Case 2:09-cv-00706-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/10/09 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

- 4 -

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00706-NVW Document 13 Filed 08/10/09 Page 4 of 4