Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08186/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08186-1/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 TERMPSREF

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Fox, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8186-PCT-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

On September 27, 2010, Petitioner Ronald Fox, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3), and a Brief in

Support of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Application Form #530 (Doc. 4). Petitioner did not

immediately pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

By Order filed October 5, 2010 (Doc. 5), the Court gave Petitioner 30 days from the

filing date of the Order to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a completed Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis using the form included with the Order.

I. Payment of Filing Fee

On October 18, 2010, the $5.00 filing fee was paid (Doc. 6). Accordingly, the Court

will proceed to review the Petition. 

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 7 Filed 12/09/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

II. Petition

Named as Respondent in the Petition is Charles L. Ryan. The Attorney General of

the State of Arizona is named in the Petition as an Additional Respondent.

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction in the Mohave County

Superior Court in matter number CR-2009-219. Petitioner alleges two grounds for relief in

the Petition in which he asserts that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments were violated. 

Although Petitioner also asserts that his rights under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(1) and

(a)(2), 1357, and 1746, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and Model Penal Code § 5.03 were

violated, he does not elaborate on how his rights under these provisions were violated.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims under these provisions will be dismissed without prejudice.

Although it appears that Petitioner has not properly exhausted his two grounds in the

state courts as required, it also appears that Petitioner may now be procedurally barred from

seeking review in the state courts, and therefore, no additional state remedies remain open

to him. In light of the possibility of procedural bar, a summary dismissal would be

inappropriate. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989) (remanding where

petitioner failed to exhaust claims and it was not clear whether claims were procedurally

barred). An answer is therefore required. 

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

On September 27, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(Doc. 3). “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to

appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed

counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,

1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970); Eskridge

v. Rhay , 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965)). However, the Court has discretion to appoint

counsel when “the interests of justice so requires.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2).

Petitioner has not made the necessary showing for appointment of counsel at this time.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion will be denied without prejudice. If, at a later date, the

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 7 Filed 12/09/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required, counsel will be appointed in

accordance with Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

IV. 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) Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is denied without

prejudice.

(2) Petitioner’s claims in the Petition (Doc. 1) that his rights under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1343(a)(1) and (a)(2), 1357, and 1746, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and Model Penal Code

§ 5.03 were violated are dismissed without prejudice.

(3) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), Petitioner’s

Brief in Support of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Application Form #530 (Doc. 4), and this Order

on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 7 Filed 12/09/10 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(4) 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.

(5) Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

answer.

(6) 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 9th day of December, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 7 Filed 12/09/10 Page 4 of 4