Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08056/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08056-1/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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Forrest Dunbar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-8056-PCT-SMM (MEA)

ORDER

On March 30, 2009, Petitioner Forrest Dunbar filed a “Writ of Habeas Corpus” and

paid the $5.00 filing fee. In an April 2, 2009 Order, the Court dismissed the Petition because

it was not filed on the court-approved form and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended

petition on the court-approved form. 

On April 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. #4). The Court will dismiss the

Amended Petition for lack of jurisdiction and because the Amended Petition is premature.

I. Amended Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Yavapai County Superior Court, case #CR-2003-0489 and

#CR-2003-1284, of forgery and leaving the scene of an accident. He was sentenced to

consecutive 2.5-year terms of imprisonment. In his Amended Petition, Petitioner names

Case 3:09-cv-08056-SMM--MEA Document 5 Filed 05/05/09 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

1

The Court takes judicial notice that Dora B. Schriro is no longer Director of the

Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC). The Court will substitute the new Director of

the ADOC, Charles L. Ryan, as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

- 2 -

former Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections Dora Schriro as Respondent1

 and

the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. 

Petitioner raises one ground for relief—“[p]ursuant to title 41 1604.10(d) [of the

Arizona Revised Statutes] . . . Petitioner is being held on community supervision outside the

legal parameters within this title.” Plaintiff affirmatively states that he has not presented this

issue to the Arizona Court of Appeals, alleging that it is “a question of protected good time

credits post release.”

II. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Section 2254(a), 28 U.S.C., requires the Court to “entertain an application for a writ

of habeas corpus [o]n behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court

only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added.) Petitioner does not

allege that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the

United States, but rather he alleges a violation of state law. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction

over this case.

III. Exhaustion of State Remedies

Before the 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). The federal court will not entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus

unless each and every issue has been exhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982).

To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must describe both the operative facts and the federal legal

theory so that the state courts have a “fair opportunity” to apply controlling legal principles

to the facts bearing on his constitutional claim. Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.

2003). In cases not carrying a life sentence or death penalty, claims are exhausted once the

Case 3:09-cv-08056-SMM--MEA Document 5 Filed 05/05/09 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

- 3 -

Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th

Cir. 1999). The failure to exhaust subjects the Petitioner to dismissal. See Gutierrez v.

Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983).

A state-court petition for post-conviction relief can be used if “[t]he person is being

held in custody after the sentence imposed has expired.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(d).

Alternatively, if the sentence imposed has not expired, a state-court petition for special action

may be appropriate. See Crumrine v. Stewart, 24 P.3d 1281, 1282 (Ariz. App. 2001) (noting

that trial court had construed a state-court petition for habeas corpus regarding the

application of earned release credits as a petition for special action and stating that, in order

to obtain special action relief, the petitioner was required to show that the Director of the

Arizona Department of Corrections “failed to exercise his discretion, failed to perform a duty

as to which he had no discretion, or abused his discretion”). Thus, Petitioner’s Amended

Petition is premature, and the Court will dismiss it without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Charles L. Ryan, Director of the ADOC, is substituted as Respondent for

Dora B. Schriro pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further

proceedings in this action must name Charles L. Ryan as Respondent.

(2) Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. #4) and this case are

dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must close this case and issue judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08056-SMM--MEA Document 5 Filed 05/05/09 Page 3 of 3