Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02390/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02390-0/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

TCK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Wilson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Bartos, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2390-PCT-DGC (MS)

ORDER

Petitioner Steven Wilson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed an Applicat ion t o Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The

Court will order an answer.

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

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

trust balance is less than $25.00. See Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.5(b) (excess of $25.00

requires payment of the filing fee). Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #1) will be granted. 

B. Procedural Background

Defendant pled guilty to second degree burglary in Mohave County Superior Court

in Matter No. 2001-2008. Petitioner was sentenced to two (2) 7.5 year concurrent terms. 

Case 3:05-cv-02390-DGC Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

In this habeas action, he assert s t hat (1) he did not receive court records and other

necessary court-documents, as ordered by t he Court, to pursue his Rule 32 relief, and (2)

his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

It is unclear whether each of the grounds was properly exhausted by presentation

to the Arizona Court of Appeals. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.

1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1124 (2000). 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 inappropriat e. See

Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989) (remanding where petitioner failed to

exhaust claims and it was not clear whether claims were procedurally barred).

Accordingly, an answer is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #1) is granted.

(2) A cop y of the Petition and this Order be served by the Clerk of Court upon the

Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail pursuant

to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(3) Respondent shall answer t he Petition within forty (40) days of the date of

service. Respondent shall 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 const it ute a

waiver of the defense. See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004); see also

Morrison v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). If not limited to affirmative defenses,

the answer shall fully comply with all of t he requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases.

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

answer.

Case 3:05-cv-02390-DGC Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

(5) Petitioner shall serve upon Resp ondent, or if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted

for consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original document and

copy, to be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the dat e a t rue and correct

copy of the pleading or document was mailed t o Respondent or the counsel. Any paper

received by a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the

Clerk of the Court may be disregarded by the Court.

(6) At all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner shall immediately

advise the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be

captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The not ice shall contain only

information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. The not ice shall

not include any motions for any other relief. Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address

may result in the dismissal of t he action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

(7) Aside from the two copies of the petition or amended petition that must be

submitted, a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany

each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. Failure to comply with this

requirement may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice

to Petitioner. 

(8) This matter is referred to M agistrate Judge Morton Sitver pursuant to Local

Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-02390-DGC Document 9 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 3