Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01202/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01202-0/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 SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eliseo Solis, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1202-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner Eliseo Solis, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex,

Cimarron Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He 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 Maricopa County Superior Court, case

#CR2005-107852, of second degree murder and was sentenced to an aggravated nineteenyear term of imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent

and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. 

Petitioner raises six grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated where his sentence was aggravated

by a factor that was an essential element of the offense. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges

that he received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on counsel’s failure to

raise the issue in Count One on appeal. In Ground Three, he alleges that his sentence was

Case 2:11-cv-01202-GMS Document 3 Filed 07/06/11 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 -

unlawfully aggravated based on the presence of an accomplice when insufficient evidence

supported that factor. In Ground Four, he alleges that the trial court failed to consider all of

the mitigating factors in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. In

Ground Five and Six, Petitioner alleges that he received the ineffective assistance of trial

counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights based on failures to object to false

testimony or to present a witness who could have testified that Petitioner acted in selfdefense. 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. 

Case 2:11-cv-01202-GMS Document 3 Filed 07/06/11 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 -

(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, 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 Edward C. Voss 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 6th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01202-GMS Document 3 Filed 07/06/11 Page 3 of 3