Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01427/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01427-0/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

Zachariah A. Surgick, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Deputy-Warden Martinez, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1427-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner Zachariah A. Surgick, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Tucson, 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 in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR 2004-022835-

001DT, of armed robbery and aggravated assault and was sentenced to two consecutive terms

of imprisonment totaling 36 years. In his Petition, Petitioner names Deputy Warden

Martinez as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent.

Petitioner raises seven grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner’s First Amendment rights were

violated when his attorneys refused to let his mother testify on his behalf; (2) Petitioner

received an unfair trial, in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (3) Petitioner’s trial counsel

was ineffective, in violation of the Sixth Amendment; (4) Petitioner’s sentence constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (5) Petitioner brings

Case 2:08-cv-01427-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/16/08 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 -

his claims under the Eleventh Amendment; (6) Petitioner was denied his Fourteenth

Amendment due process rights; and (7) Petitioner has filed a civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 with the attorney general’s office.

It is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted all of his claims. Even assuming that

the exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted claim may be

procedurally barred. 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 the claims were procedurally

barred). Accordingly, the Court will require Respondents to answer Counts One through

Four, and Six of the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

II. Dismissal of Counts Five and Seven

The Court will dismiss Counts Five and Seven of the Petition. In Count Five,

Petitioner argues that the Eleventh Amendment allows him to sue state authorities in federal

court for depriving him of his constitutional rights. In Count Seven, Petitioner states that he

has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with the attorney general’s

office. Habeas proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the

legality or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). In

Counts Five and Seven, Petitioner does not raise claims regarding the legality or duration of

his confinement. Accordingly, Counts Five and Seven will be dismissed.

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

Case 2:08-cv-01427-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/16/08 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 -

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) Counts Five and Seven of the Petition are dismissed without prejudice.

(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 Counts One, Two, Three, Four, and Six of 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.

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 2:08-cv-01427-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/16/08 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 -

(5) 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 12th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01427-MHM Document 8 Filed 09/16/08 Page 4 of 4