Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01844/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01844-0/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kraig Clark, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1844-PHX-GMS (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner Kraig Clark, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will require an

answer to the Petition.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate

trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

II. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR 2005-

011789-001DT and #CR 2004-022524-001DT, of first-degree murder, sexual conduct

with a minor, child molestation, and furnishing obscene materials to a minor. Petitioner

Case 2:08-cv-01844-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/24/08 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 -

states that he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of life, 17 years, and 20 years. 

Petitioner names Dora B. Schriro as Respondent to the Petition and the Arizona Attorney

General as an Additional Respondent.

Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner’s plea agreement was

unconstitutional because Petitioner was not mentally competent to enter into the

agreement; and (2) Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth

Amendment.

Petitioner states that he has presented these claims to the Arizona Court of

Appeals. The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

III. 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).

Case 2:08-cv-01844-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/24/08 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 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) is

granted.

(2) 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. 

(3) 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.

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

answer.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson 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 23rd day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01844-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/24/08 Page 3 of 3