Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08064/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08064-0/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

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Anthony Zurawski, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-8064-PCT-EHC (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner John Anthony Zurawski, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison,

Cheyenne Unit, in Yuma, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. 

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Yavapai County Superior Court, case no. CR 1999-0213,

of two counts of armed robbery, and one count each of kidnapping and stalking pursuant to

a plea agreement. He was sentenced from 1.5 to 29.5 years per offense. Petitioner names

Dora Schriro and the Arizona Attorney General as Respondents. 

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. First, he alleges that the trial court violated

his right to due process by sentencing him to more time than provided under his plea

agreement and for sentencing him for a crime not agreed upon in the plea agreement. (Doc.#

1 at 6.) Second, he alleges a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective

assistance of appellate counsel by appellate counsel’s failure to raise the first claim on direct

appeal or to challenge whether Petitioner’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. (Id.

Case 3:07-cv-08064-EHC Document 3 Filed 09/25/07 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 -

at 7.) Third, Petitioner alleges violation of his right to the effective assistance of appellate

counsel based on counsel’s failure to raise an Apprendi claim. (Id. at 8.) He also alleges that

the State of Arizona denied Petitioner access to the courts by failing to provide case law to

inmates. (Id.) Last, Petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel (1)

advised Petitioner that concurrent sentences would be imposed; (2) failed to investigate and

substantiate that Petitioner had post-traumatic stress disorder as mitigation; (3) failed to

object to Petitioner being sentenced in excess of the sentence agreed upon and for a crime

not agreed upon in the plea agreement; and (4) failed to raise an Apprendi claim. 

II. Count III (in part) Fails to Allege a Cognizable Habeas Claim

In Count III, Petitioner alleges in part that the State of Arizona denied him access to

the courts by failing to make case law available to inmates. This portion of Count III fails

to state a cognizable basis for habeas relief. Federal habeas relief is available “only on the

ground that [an inmate] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). While a state inmate may seek relief against prison or

jail officials for those officials’ alleged unconstitutional conduct, he must do so in an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not in a habeas petition. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541

U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“constitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a

prisoner’s confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside

[the] core [of habeas relief] and may be brought pursuant to § 1983”); Muhammad v. Close,

540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars

affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . ; requests for relief turning on the

circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”); Badea v. Cox, 931

F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (a civil

rights action is the proper method to challenge conditions of confinement)). 

To the extent that Petitioner seeks to challenge an alleged denial of access to the

courts, Petitioner must commence an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner may

not seek relief for denial of access to the courts in his habeas proceedings. 

Case 3:07-cv-08064-EHC Document 3 Filed 09/25/07 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 -

III. Remaining Claims

It is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted his remaining claims. Even assuming

that the exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted claim 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, an answer is required to Petitioner’s remaining claims.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

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 submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

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, 963 F.2d at

1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the

Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Count III (in part) of the Petition (doc.# 1) is dismissed for failure to state a

cognizable habeas claim.

Case 3:07-cv-08064-EHC Document 3 Filed 09/25/07 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 -

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (doc.# 1) and this Order

on the Respondents, including 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 remaining claims in 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.

(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 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 21st day of September, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08064-EHC Document 3 Filed 09/25/07 Page 4 of 4