Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00182/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00182-3/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

Everett Gregory Casteel, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-182-PHX-GMS (BSB)

ORDER

Petitioner Everett Gregory Casteel, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Eyman, 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. On April 25, 2012, the Court

granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Petition with leave to amend. On May

21, 2012, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition, which, on June 28, 2012, the Court also

dismissed with leave to amend. On July 30, 2012, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition

(Doc. 13). The Court will require an answer to the Second Amended Petition.

I. Second Amended Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR 2007-

116559001DT, of two counts of Possession of Narcotic Drugs for Sale and one count of

Dangerous Drugs for Sale and was sentenced to a 15.75-year term of imprisonment. In his

Second Amended Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. 

Case 2:12-cv-00182-GMS Document 16 Filed 09/17/12 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 -

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief:

(1) Petitioner is held in custody in violation of the laws of the United States and

was not provided state-appointed counsel;

(2) “The Man Everett Gregory Casteel, is held without cause warrant claim,

charges being filed, no indictment, no information, the body of the California

State Sovereign Everett Gregory: Casteel a private man of the California

Republic-a foreign state, is being held under a public fictional name that is not

his title and or not UCC filed by the State to secure a claim against a citizen

of a foreign state. No claim is found in a state court why this man, [should] not

[be] released immediately”;

(3) Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when evidence at his trial

was not suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree and he was convicted by the

use of perjured testimony; and

(4) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to try Petitioner and Petitioner’s trial counsel

“told [Petitioner] to reject all plea offers and then did no pre-trial . . .he said ‘I

will not do anything to help you, get ready for prison because that’s where

you[’re] going.’”

While Grounds One, Three, and Four can arguably be construed to challenge

Petitioner’s state court conviction, Ground Two is almost entirely incomprehensible and does

not make a cognizable challenge to Petitioner’s conviction or sentence. The Court will

therefore dismiss Count Two.

It is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted each of the remaining claims in state

court. Even if the exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted

claims 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

Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Second Amended Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Case 2:12-cv-00182-GMS Document 16 Filed 09/17/12 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 -

II. 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

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

General Order 12-25, 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 ASPC-Eyman, 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 12-25.

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) Ground Two of the Second Amended Petition is dismissed without prejudice.

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Second Amended Petition

(Doc. 13) 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 Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Second

Amended 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

Case 2:12-cv-00182-GMS Document 16 Filed 09/17/12 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 -

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.

(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 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 17th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00182-GMS Document 16 Filed 09/17/12 Page 4 of 4