Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02130/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02130-0/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 ASH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gary Thomas Kelley, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Laura Escapule, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 14-02130-PHX-SPL (BSB) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Gary Thomas Kelley, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The 

Court will require an answer to the Petition. 

I. Petition 

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR2010-

123572, of one count each of second degree murder and aggravated assault, and was 

sentenced to consecutive sentences totaling a 27.5-year term of imprisonment. In his 

Petition, Petitioner names Laura Escapule as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney 

General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. In 

Ground One, Petitioner alleges that the Arizona Supreme Court failed to consider 

Petitioner’s state post-conviction claims, in violation of Petitioner’s Due Process rights. 

In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that the state trial court interfered with Petitioner’s 

ability to obtain transcript excerpts and the state appellate court denied counsel to 

Case 2:14-cv-02130-SPL Document 4 Filed 10/30/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Petitioner, both in violation of Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment 

rights. In Count Three, Petitioner alleges that the state trial court denied Petitioner’s Due 

Process rights by amending the indicted charge to include a charge of manslaughter, by 

giving a defective jury instruction, and by “excising its two clauses for the consideration 

of self-defense.” In Ground Four, Petitioner alleges that the state trial court improperly 

declared a mistrial, in violation of Petitioner’s Due Process rights. 

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

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

 If Petitioner’s 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 2:14-cv-02130-SPL Document 4 Filed 10/30/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

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, 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 Bridget S. Bade 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 30th day of October, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02130-SPL Document 4 Filed 10/30/14 Page 3 of 3