Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00296/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00296-0/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 TERMPSREF

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Davis, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0296-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Michael Davis, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexBrowning Unit, in Florence, Arizona, has 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. (Doc.# 1,

3.) Petitioner has also filed a “Motion to Proceed in Writ of Habeas Corpus in Pro Per

Status,” in which Petitioner seeks an order authorizing various items to be mailed into the

prison for him, and a “Motion for Production of Documents Ect [sic].” (Doc.# 4, 5.) The

Court will require an answer to the Petition. Petitioner’s motion for items to be mailed into

the prison for him and for production of documents will be denied. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust

account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

///

Case 2:09-cv-00296-DGC Document 6 Filed 03/03/09 Page 1 of 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

 1 According to records available online, Petitioner also pleaded guilty to one count of

criminal trespass in CR2005-126723 and one count of aggravated assault in

CR200501340985 on December 15, 2006. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/

Criminal/122006/m2497892.pdf and http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/

122006/m2497894.pdf. He was sentenced to concurrent one year terms in prison with 388

days presentence incarceration. Id.

 2 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052007/m2657395.pdf.

TERMPSREF - 2 -

II. Petition

Petitioner pleaded guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court, case CR2006-006106,

to one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices, for which he received three years on

probation beginning December 15, 2006.1

 On April 27, 2007, Petitioner admitted violating

the terms of his probation on the charge of fraudulent schemes and artifices, as amended, and

was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.2

 In his Petition, Petitioner names Dora Schriro

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

Petitioner raises two grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his due

process rights were violated where he was not afforded an opportunity to present mitigation

prior to sentencing for the probation violation. In Ground Two, he alleges that his attorney

rendered ineffective assistance in failing to inform Petitioner that he could present mitigation

and for failing to present mitigation prior to sentencing. The Court will require Respondents

to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

III. Motions

In his “Motion to Proceed in Writ of Habeas Corpus in Pro Per Status,” Petitioner asks

the Court to order prison officials to allow various materials to be mailed to Petitioner, which

he cannot otherwise afford to purchase or that prisoners are not able to purchase from the

inmate store or approved vendors. He seeks to have paper, envelopes, stamps, folders, pen

fillers, highlighters, and the like mailed to him, as well as “case law necessary to proceed.”

(Doc.# 4 at 2.) 

An inmate retains First Amendment rights not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner

or with legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. See Shaw v. Murphy,

Case 2:09-cv-00296-DGC Document 6 Filed 03/03/09 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

532 U.S. 223, 231 (2001); Clement v. California Dep’t of Corr., 364 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th

Cir. 2004). Inmates thus retain a First Amendment right to receive mail. Witherow v. Paff,

52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1999). Prison officials, however, may regulate the processing of

inmate mail so long as those regulations further an important or substantial government

interest other than the suppression of expression. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,

411-12, 413-14 (1974) (First Amendment not violated by regulation of outgoing prisoner

mail which furthers a substantial government interest and is no greater than necessary to

protect that interest), overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,

412-414 (1989)). 

Petitioner asks the Court to require prison officials to allow third parties to mail him

supplies and case law because he is indigent and proceeding pro se. Indigent pro se inmates

do not have greater rights with respect to incoming mail than non-indigent inmates. Both are

subject to prison regulation. See Johnson v. Goord, 445 F.3d 532, 534 (2d Cir. 2006) (per

curiam) (“an indigent prisoner does not have a constitutional right to unlimited free postage

for non-legal mail”) Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 528 (7th Cir. 2002) (constitutional right

does not imply a right to a government subsidy); see also Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176,

1179 (9th Cir. 1999) (indigent inmates are not a suspect class for equal protection purposes).

This motion will be denied. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for production of documents, which he describes as:

“Everything in the case file, any and all transcripts, min. entries, motions filed, answers,

medical reports, rule 11, medigotion [sic], plea bargains [etc.]” and to receive everything his

attorneys have. (Doc.# 5.) Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas

Rules”) provides that “[a] judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rule

6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Thus, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal

court, a habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery “as a matter of ordinary course,” Bracy

v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); see also Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th

Cir. 1999), and a habeas court should not allow a habeas petitioner “to use federal discovery

Case 2:09-cv-00296-DGC Document 6 Filed 03/03/09 Page 3 of 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

 3 Habeas Rule 5(c) requires the respondent to file portions of the record relevant to a

petitioner’s claims, and can required to file other portions by the Court. Rule 5(c), 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. 

TERMPSREF - 4 -

for fishing expeditions to investigate mere speculation.” Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court for the Northern Dist. of Cal. (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996); see also

Aubut v. State of Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970) (“[h]abeas corpus is not a general

form of relief for those who seek to explore their case in search of its existence”). Petitioner

has set forth no cause, much less good cause, to allow discovery in this case.3

 Accordingly,

this motion will be denied.

IV. 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

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

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 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Petition,

Case 2:09-cv-00296-DGC Document 6 Filed 03/03/09 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

is granted. (Doc.# 3.)

(2) Petitioner’s motions are denied. (Doc.# 4, 5.) 

(3) 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. 

(4) 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, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (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.

(5) Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

answer.

(6) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey 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 2nd day of March, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00296-DGC Document 6 Filed 03/03/09 Page 5 of 5