Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02096-0/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

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugene Boyd Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

State of Arizona, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2096-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner Eugene Boyd Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex, Dakota Unit, in San Luis, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 1, 6.) The Court

dismissed the Petition with leave to file a first amended petition to name Petitioner’s

custodian. (Doc. 7.) Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition, which the Court dismissed

with leave to amend. (Doc. 8, 9.) Petitioner has filed a Second Amended Petition. (Doc.

10.) A response will be required to the Second Amended Petition. 

I. Second Amended Petition

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

CR2004-036464, of one count of robbery and two counts of armed robbery and was

sentenced to a 31.5-year term of imprisonment. In his Second Amended Petition, Petitioner

names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional

Respondent.

Case 2:10-cv-02096-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/14/11 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 TERMPSREF - 2 -

Petitioner raises nine grounds for relief, which appear the same as those raised in his

First Amended Petition. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges a claim for prosecutorial

misconduct. In Ground Two, he alleges a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation

Clause. In Ground Three, Petitioner asserts a violation of the right to compulsory process.

In Ground Four, Petitioner alleges insufficient evidence to support his armed robbery

conviction. In Ground Five, he asserts that he was denied an evidentiary hearing. In

Grounds Six through Eight, he alleges that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel.

In Ground Nine, Petitioner asserts a violation of his due process 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:

Case 2:10-cv-02096-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/14/11 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 TERMPSREF - 3 -

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Second Amended Petition (Doc.

10) 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 Second Amended 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 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, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (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 David K. Duncan 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 14th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02096-GMS Document 11 Filed 02/14/11 Page 3 of 3