Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03016/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03016-0/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ramona Holderman, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3016-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

Petitioner Ramona Holderman, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex -

Perryville and is represented by counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will require an

answer to the Petition.

As alleged in the Petition, Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior

Court, case #CR2003-019679-001 DT, of attempted fraudulent schemes and artifices and was

sentenced to a 8.75-year term of imprisonment. In her Petition, Petitioner names Dora

Schriro as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent.

Petitioner raises two grounds for relief.

In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that her Sixth Amendment rights were violated

because the trial court aggravated her sentenced based on factors that were not pled or

presented to a jury. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that her Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment due process rights were violated because she was not provided notice of the

Case 2:06-cv-03016-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/19/07 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

aggravating factors on which the trial court relied to aggravate her sentence beyond the

presumptive.

It appears Petitioner has exhausted her claims. Accordingly, an answer is required.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

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 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 Jay R. Irwin 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 18th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03016-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 2