Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08516/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08516-0/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

Anthony Charles Hall,

Petitioner,

v.

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-23-08516-PCT-GMS (DMF)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Petitioner Anthony Charles Hall filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Amended Petition”) (Doc. 5), which the Court 

ordered Respondents to answer (Doc. 7).1 The Amended Petition is directed to Petitioner’s

manslaughter and theft of means of transportation convictions in Mohave County Superior 

Court (case number CR2021-00382), for which Petitioner was sentenced to a 26.5-year 

combined term of imprisonment (Doc. 5). This matter is on referral to the undersigned for 

further proceedings and a report and recommendation pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of 

the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 7 at 5).

This Report and Recommendation is directed to Petitioner’s motion requesting an 

1 Citation to the record indicates documents as displayed in the official Court electronic 

document filing system maintained by the District of Arizona under Case No. CV-23-

08516-PCT-GMS (DMF).

Case 3:23-cv-08516-GMS Document 17 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 3
- 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

“Injunction” “to postpone any restitution request, or payments to the ‘alleged’ victim 

regarding the convictions” at issue in these proceedings (Doc. 12).2 Petitioner asserts that 

the relief requested in his motion should be granted out of fairness (Id.).

After ordered by the Court to respond to the motion (Doc. 14), Respondents filed a 

timely response stating:

Petitioner Anthony Charles Hall filed a motion requesting that this Court 

“postpone any restitution request or payments” until completion of his 

federal habeas corpus proceedings. Dkt. 12. This Court ordered a response. 

Dkt. 13. Hall’s request appears moot. 

When the state trial court imposed Hall’s sentence, it reserved jurisdiction 

for restitution purposes for 120 days. Exh. J at 2. Apparently, no restitution 

request was made within that time because no restitution order appears in the 

state court record. Exh. K.

(Doc. 16 at 1). To the response, Respondents attached the pertinent April 14, 2022, 

sentencing minute entry (Doc. 16-1 at 3-6, referred to as “Exhibit J”) reflecting that the 

superior court reserved jurisdiction for restitution for 120 days (Id. at 4). Respondents also 

attached a January 16, 2024, email from the Mohave County Superior Court stating that 

there is not a restitution order in the case (Doc. 16-1 at 8, referred to as “Exhibit K”).

No reply has been filed and the time for doing so has expired. In any event, a reply 

is not necessary for the Court to rule.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondents appear to be correct that no restitution was ordered in Petitioner’s 

underlying criminal case, rendering Petitioner’s motion moot (Doc. 12). 

Regardless, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address restitution orders in these 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 984 (9th Cir. 2010) (Section 

2254 “does not confer jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition raising an in-custody 

challenge to a restitution order.”). Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s 

motion.

2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, undersigned proceeds by Report and Recommendation on 

Petitioner’s motion regarding restitution proceedings.

Case 3:23-cv-08516-GMS Document 17 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Further, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal, quasi-criminal 

enforcement actions, or in civil “cases involving a state's interest in enforcing the orders 

and judgments of its courts,” absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 

401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required regarding the matters raised in 

Plaintiff’s pending motion (Doc. 12).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Motion for Injunction for Courts to 

Postpone Restitution (Doc. 12) be denied.

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)(1) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

judgment. The parties shall 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, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within which 

to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 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 9th day of February, 2024.

Case 3:23-cv-08516-GMS Document 17 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 3