Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_99-cv-00603/USCOURTS-azd-4_99-cv-00603-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angel Mayora Medrano, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-99-00603-TUC-CKJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

For the reasons that follow, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the stay of

his sentencing claims should not be lifted, the claims dismissed, and judgment entered.

In 1999, Petitioner initiated this habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The next

year he filed an amended habeas petition raising numerous claims for relief from his state

court conviction and capital sentence. (Doc. 30.) Following the Supreme Court’s decisions

in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), this

Court stayed Petitioner’s sentencing-related claims pending successive state post-conviction

proceedings based on Ring and Petitioner’s alleged mental retardation. (Docs. 67, 80.)

While state proceedings were ongoing, the Court ruled on Petitioner’s conviction-related

claims, concluding that he was not entitled to habeas relief. (Docs. 119, 176.) 

Subsequently, the state court determined that Petitioner was mentally retarded, vacated

his death sentence, and resentenced him to life imprisonment, rendering moot Petitioner’s

pending sentencing-related habeas claims. Because it appears that state court proceedings

are concluded, the Court can discern no basis for maintaining the stay in this case or further

Case 4:99-cv-00603-CKJ Document 180 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

postponing issuance of judgment. As already noted, the Court has ruled on all of Petitioner’s

conviction-related claims and his sentencing claims became moot when the state court

vacated his capital sentence. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order,

Petitioner shall show cause in writing why the stay of his sentencing claims should not be

lifted, the claims dismissed as moot, and judgment entered. Unless otherwise directed by the

Court, Respondents shall not file a response. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion for issuance of a certificate of

appealability shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order.

Unless otherwise directed by the Court, Respondents shall not file a response.

DATED this 11th day of October, 2012.

Case 4:99-cv-00603-CKJ Document 180 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 2