Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00711/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00711-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Bobby Jerry Tatum, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00711-PHX-DJH (BSB)

ORDER AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 On September 28, 2015, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking relief from his sentence of life without parole under 

Miller v. Alabama, ___U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). (Doc. 11.) On November 2, 

2015, the Court stayed the proceeding pending the resolution of Petitioner’s petition for 

review in Arizona v. Tatum, CR-15-0078-PR, in the Arizona Supreme Court. (Doc. 17 

(stating that the Court stayed the matter “in its discretion.”).) On February 1, 2016, 

Respondents notified the Court that the Arizona Supreme Court had denied review. 

(Doc. 19.) Based on that notice, on February 3, 2016, the Court lifted the stay and 

ordered Respondents to file an answer within forty days of the date of that order. 

(Doc. 20 at 2-3.) 

 Thereafter, the Court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner. (Doc. 22.) On 

March 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to stay this proceeding and hold the amended 

petition in abeyance while he seeks further review based on the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Montgomery v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), which addressed the 

Case 2:15-cv-00711-DJH-JFM Document 27 Filed 03/21/16 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 

Miller case. Petitioner explains that the ninety-day period for filing a petition for writ of 

certiorari in the United States Supreme Court is still open. See Sup. Ct. R. 13. He argues 

that the United States Supreme Court could order the Arizona courts to reconsider 

Petitioner’s challenge to his life sentence without parole based on its recent decision in 

Montgomery. Petitioner states that Respondents do not oppose a stay. (Doc. 22 at 4.) 

 After consideration of this matter, the Court recommends that the proceeding be 

stayed. This recommendation is based on the procedural history of this case, which 

included a stay of the proceeding while a petition for review was pending in the Arizona 

Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on January 5, 2016. 

(Doc. 19.) Therefore, the ninety-day period of time to petition the United States Supreme 

Court for a writ of certiorari has not expired. Thus, the recommended stay of the 

proceedings at this point is essentially a continuation of the stay that the Court granted on 

November 2, 2015.1

 

 Petitioner also requests that the Court authorize counsel in this case to assist 

Petitioner in ancillary post-conviction proceedings. Under the Criminal Justice Act, once 

counsel is appointed for an indigent state prisoner, that prisoner “shall be represented at 

every stage of the proceeding . . .,including ancillary matters appropriate to the 

proceedings.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). The Court finds that it is appropriate for counsel in 

this case to assist Petitioner in ancillary post-conviction proceedings, including filing a 

petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, and if ordered by the 

Supreme Court, in further state proceedings related to Petitioner’s claims in the amended 

petition. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 25) be 

GRANTED for the reasons set forth in this Report and Recommendation and that this 

matter be stayed while a petition for certiorari in connection with Arizona v. Tatum, CR-

 

1

 Therefore, the Court does not need to determine whether a stay is appropriate under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), and the Report and Recommendation should not be construed as making such a determination. 

Case 2:15-cv-00711-DJH-JFM Document 27 Filed 03/21/16 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 

15-0078-PR (Ariz.), is pending. If the United States Supreme Court grants the petition 

and remands the case to the Arizona Supreme Court for further consideration in light of 

Montgomery, the stay shall remain place until state post-conviction proceedings on 

remand have concluded. Petitioner’s counsel shall notify this Court when the petition for 

writ of certiorari is filed, and when the Supreme Court takes action on the petition. If the 

Supreme Court remands the case for further proceedings, Petitioner’s counsel shall notify 

the Court of the status of the state court proceedings every ninety days. If Petitioner’s 

counsel does not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme 

Court, she must immediately notify the Court upon the expiration of the deadline for 

doing so. 

IT IS FUTHER RECOMMENDED that Criminal Justice Act panel attorney 

Sarah Stone be authorized to represent Petitioner in connection with those proceedings 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). 

IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for Respondents to file an answer to the 

amended petition is stayed pending a ruling on this Report and Recommendation. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), should not be filed until entry of the District 

Court’s judgment. The parties have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of 

this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen 

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the District Court’s 

acceptance of the Report and Recommendation without further review. See United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-00711-DJH-JFM Document 27 Filed 03/21/16 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 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual determination of the Magistrate 

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of 

fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 21st day of March, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00711-DJH-JFM Document 27 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 4