Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02634/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02634-0/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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Virgil Lee Lindsey, Jr.,

Petitioner

-vsCharles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents

CV-09-2634-PHX-ROS (JRI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On Motion to Dismiss 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Petitioner, presently incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex at San Luis,

Arizona, has filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition (Doc. 18) asking that his Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice. Respondents have not responded.

The motion is a dispositive motion, and accordingly, the undersigned makes the

following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Background - Petitioner was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement in Maricopa

County Superior Court, cases CR2006-171572 and CR2004-132507, of attempted theft of

the means of transportation with one prior felony conviction and attempted robbery with two

prior felony convictions and was sentenced to a 9.5-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner

pled guilty, and now challenges his conviction on grounds of speedy trial violations,

involuntary plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and violation of his double jeopardy

rights. (Petition, Doc. 1.)

Respondents have filed an Answer (Doc. 15) asserting inter alia that Petitioner’s

Petition is barred by the habeas statute of limitations, and that his claims are unexhausted and

procedurally defaulted. 

Case 2:09-cv-02634-ROS Document 22 Filed 09/17/10 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

- 2 -

Petitioner has not yet replied in support of his Petition, and the time to reply has been

extended pending a ruling on the instant motion. (Order 9/3/10, Doc. 21.) 

Motion to Withdraw/Dismiss - In his Motion, Petitioner references the procedural

defenses asserted in the Answer, and moves to have the case “dismissed without prejudice”

so he can “properly seek[] to present issues to the final stage of state court accordingly.”

(Doc. 18 at 1.) 

Although their Answer seeks a dismissal with prejudice, Respondents have not

opposed Petitioner’s Motion, and the time to respond has long since run. Pursuant to Local

Civil Rule 7.2(i), the Court should deem the failure to respond to be “a consent to the denial

or granting of the motion.” 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) permits a dismissal of an action upon motion

of Plaintiff “by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.”

While the undersigned is not convinced that, upon complete briefing, a dismissal with

prejudice would not result based upon the untimeliness of the Petition or Petitioner’s

procedural defaults, neither is the undersigned willing to assume at this juncture that

Petitioner is so devoid of the potential for obtaining state remedies that a dismissal with

prejudice is necessary. To the extent that Petitioner may be successful in obtaining an

audience with the state courts, it is more prudent for this Court to delay addressing the merits

of the Petition and procedural defenses until after the state courts have resolved the matters.

In so recommending, the undersigned is not unmindful that no tolling of the habeas

limitations period results from the pendency of a federal habeas petition. Duncan v. Walker,

533 U.S. 167 (2001). Nor does the pendency of a state proceeding after expiration of the

statute of limitations revive the time to file a habeas petition. Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478,

482 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, if it were assumed (despite Respondents’ arguments to the

contrary) that this Petition was timely, a subsequent habeas petition following dismissal may

not be timely as a result of the nine months that have passed during the pendency of this

action. 

Nonetheless, Respondents present no reason to not permit Petitioner the opportunity

Case 2:09-cv-02634-ROS Document 22 Filed 09/17/10 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

- 3 -

to pursue his course. Doing so will avoid foreclosing Petitioner from seeking habeas relief

in the future under the successive petition limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See Stewart

v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) (dismissal without prejudice does not make

subsequent petition “successive”). See also Hertz & Liebman, Fed. Hab. Corpus Pract. &

Proced. §28.3(b)(ii) (2009) (discussing non-consideration of prior dismissals without

prejudice at request of petitioner). 

Accordingly, a dismissal without prejudice will be recommended.

Certificate of Appealability - Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

requires that in habeas cases the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Such certificates are

required in cases concerning detention arising “out of process issued by a State court”, or in

a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 

Here, the Petition is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and challenges detention

pursuant to a State court judgment. The recommendations if accepted will result in

Petitioner’s Petition being dismissed. However, because that dismissal will be without

prejudice at the request of Petitioner, it will not be a resolution adverse to Petitioner.

Accordingly, a decision on a certificate of appealability is not required. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw

Petition, filed August 9, 2010 (Doc. 18) be GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, filed December 18, 2009 (Doc. 1) and this action be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

EFFECT OF 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)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

Case 2:09-cv-02634-ROS Document 22 Filed 09/17/10 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

- 4 -

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See also Rule 8(b), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to

file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any findings or

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de

novo consideration of the issues, see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

DATED: September 17, 2010 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\09-2634-018r RR 10 09 14 re Ps MTD HC.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-02634-ROS Document 22 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 4