Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00471/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00471-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Damian Dudley, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 15-0471-PHX-SMM (JZB) 

 O R D E R 

On March 13, 2015, Petitioner Damian Dudley, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and paid the $5.00 filing fee, but he did not sign the 

Petition. In an April 27, 2015 Order, the Court gave Petitioner 30 days to file a 

certification. On May 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Blank Certificate (Doc. 7), a 

Declaration in Support of his Motion for a Blank Certificate (Doc. 8), and a Motion to 

Submit Page Eleven of Petition (Doc. 9) and attached a signed copy of the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus form’s signature page. The Court will accept the signed copy of 

the Petition form’s signature page, deny the Motions as moot, and require an answer to 

the Petition. 

I. Petitioner’s Motions 

In his Motion for Blank Certificate (Doc. 7), Petitioner states that he did not 

receive the Certificate form, which was supposed to be included with the Court’s April 

27, 2015 Order, and requests that a Certificate form be sent to him. In his Motion to 

Case 2:15-cv-00471-SMM Document 10 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

Submit Page Eleven of Petition (Doc. 9), Petitioner asks the Court to accept the attached, 

signed copy of page eleven of the Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 form’s signature page in lieu of the Certificate form. The Court will 

accept the provided signature page and will deny Petitioner’s motions as moot. 

II. Petition 

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #2007-128171, 

of one count of robbery, one count of kidnapping, and one count of aggravated assault 

and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was 

seventeen years. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Arizona Court 

of Appeals on March 6, 2012, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied his petition for 

review on July 24, 2012. On October 22, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief, the Maricopa County Superior Court denied it, and the Arizona Court 

of Appeals granted review, but denied relief. In his Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. 

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

Petitioner raises twelve grounds for relief: 

1) Petitioner’s indictment violated the Sixth Amendment 

because it did not allege venue; 

2) there were numerous errors that could not have been 

harmless; 

3) the prosecutor failed to properly show that the 

admission of Petitioner’s Massachusetts prior 

conviction for use as a sentencing enhancement did not 

violate his Sixth Amendment rights; 

4) Petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights 

were violated when the prosecutor referred to facts that 

were not proven; 

5) Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated because 

the trial transcripts are not accurate; 

6) Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were 

violated because Arizona’s kidnapping statutes are 

Case 2:15-cv-00471-SMM Document 10 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

vague and ambiguous; 

7) Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated 

when his preliminary hearing date was vacated; 

8) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of Rule 32 

counsel when counsel failed to raise claims of 

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in 

his post-conviction relief proceedings; 

9) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel when counsel failed to “accompany Petitioner 

in a free talk with the Phoenix Police,” failed to 

interview one of the State’s witnesses, and “failed to 

object to [the] Court’s failure to rule on [a] motion 

before Court”; 

10) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel 

when counsel “failed to object to the lack of venue in 

the indictment”; 

11) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 

when counsel failed to “challenge the State[’]s case 

[and] failed to allege pertinent issues”; and 

12) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment when 

trial counsel failed to “enter[] into an agreement with 

the County Attorney’s office without informing the 

Petitioner”; failed to request a “mitigation specialist”; 

and failed to object to aggravated sentencing. 

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 

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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00471-SMM Document 10 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

B. Copies

 Because Petitioner is currently confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections 

unit subject to General Order 14-17, 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 unit other than one 

subject to General Order 14-17, 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 14-17. 

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) Petitioner’s Motion for Blank Certificate (Doc. 7) and Motion to Submit 

Page Eleven of Petition (Doc. 9) are denied as moot. 

(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 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 2:15-cv-00471-SMM Document 10 Filed 05/12/15 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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. 

 (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 John Z. Boyle 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 May, 2015. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00471-SMM Document 10 Filed 05/12/15 Page 5 of 5