Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01259/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01259-0/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 SC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Nelson Alejandro Flores Albeno, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 13-1259-PHX-GMS (MEA) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Nelson Alejandro Flores Albeno, who is confined in the Arizona State 

Prison Complex, Cook Unit, in Florence, 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 indicted in Yuma County Superior Court, case# CR2006-01218, 

with two counts of kidnapping and one count each of aggravated assault and unlawful 

flight from law enforcement in connection with offenses that began in Maricopa County 

but ended in Yuma Count on or about September 27, 2006. (Doc. 1, ex. 1.) Petitioner 

was also indicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case# CR2006-031069, with 

kidnapping, aggravated assault, false reporting, three counts each of sexual conduct with 

a minor and sexual abuse, and child molestation with offense dates from June 1, 2006 to 

September 27, 2006.1

 (Id.) 

 

1

 Petitioner was identified in that case by the last name of Albeno-Flores. 

Case 2:13-cv-01259-GMS Document 8 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

On January 31, 2008, Petitioner was convicted in the Yuma County case pursuant 

to a plea agreement of aggravated assault for which he was sentenced to 17 years in 

prison and the other Yuma charges were dismissed. (Id.) On September 3, 2009, 

Petitioner was convicted in the Maricopa County case pursuant to a plea agreement of 

three counts of attempted child molestation.2

 On October 15, 2009, Petitioner was 

sentenced to five years on one count to run consecutive to his Yuma County sentence and 

suspending sentence on the remaining two counts and imposing lifetime probation.3

In this case, Petitioner seeks habeas relief as to his Yuma County conviction. 

Petitioner indicates that he filed two petitions for post-conviction relief in the trial court, 

but was denied relief. He further indicates that he filed petitions for review from the 

denial of post-conviction relief by the Yuma court in the Arizona Court of Appeals, but 

that he was also denied relief by the appellate court. 

In his Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona 

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises two grounds for relief. 

In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights were violated where his offenses commenced in Chandler, but he was 

arrested and prosecuted in Yuma County. Petitioner asserts that he received excessive 

punishment after being charged with some of the same offenses in both counties. In 

Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that he received the ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The Court will require Respondents 

to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

 Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

 

2

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092009/m3873079. pdf (last visited Nov. 20, 2013). 

3

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3929744. pdf (last visited Nov. 20, 2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01259-GMS Document 8 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

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

 Because Petitioner is currently confined in ASPC-Eyman and this case is subject 

to General Order 13-11, Petitioner is not required to serve Respondents with a copy of 

every document he files or to submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the 

Court, as would ordinarily be required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local 

Rule of Civil Procedure 5.4. If Petitioner is transferred to a prison other than ASPCEyman, he will be notified of the requirements for service and copies for the Court that 

are required for inmates whose cases are not subject to General Order 13-11. 

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) 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 

Case 2:13-cv-01259-GMS Document 8 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

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 Mark E. Aspey 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 22nd day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01259-GMS Document 8 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 4