Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00757/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00757-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Gregory Scott Dickens, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-01-757-PHX-NVW

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Before the Court are Respondents Request for a Ruling and Petitioner’s Motion for

a More Definite Statement. (Dkt. 166, 167.) 

In December 2006, Respondents filed an inquiry as to the status of this case pursuant

to Local Rule Civil 7.2.(1). At that time, the Court suspended the rule in view of the number

of other pending capital habeas cases before the Court and indicated that the merits of

Petitioner’s remaining claims were under advisement. (Dkt. 165.) On April 30, 2008,

Respondents filed the pending request for an “expedited decision” pursuant to an inquiry

made by a statutory victim under the newly-created Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). See

18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(7), (b)(2). The Court is cognizant of its obligations under the CVRA.

However, this is neither the Court’s only capital habeas case nor is it the oldest.

Consequently, the Court denies Respondents’ request. The Court further notes that the

matter is under active consideration and the Court anticipates that it will be prepared to issue

its ruling by August 2008. 

Case 2:01-cv-00757-NVW Document 168 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

In response to the Request for a Ruling, Petitioner filed the pending Motion for a

More Definite Statement, seeking an order requiring Respondents to disclose the

circumstances under which the inquiry from the victim was made. In support of this request,

Petitioner states only that he needs such information to formulate his response to

Respondents’ filing. Because a response to the Request for a Ruling is not required,

Petitioner’s motion will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Respondents’ Request for a Ruling. (Dkt.

166.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for a More Definite

Statement. (Dkt. 167.)

DATED this 7th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:01-cv-00757-NVW Document 168 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2