Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02185/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02185-0/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernie Pete Ortega, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2185-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

In an October 22, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed without prejudice Petitioner Ernie

Pete Ortega’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and gave him

30 days to file an amended petition. On November 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a “Request for

Enlargement of 60 days.” In a November 5, 2010 Order, the Court partially granted

Petitioner’s Request; the Court granted Petitioner an additional 45 days to comply with the

Court’s October 22nd Order.

On December 16, 2010, Petitioner filed a “Request for 45 Day Time Extension”

(Doc. 9) to comply with the Court’s October 22nd Order. On December 21, 2010, Petitioner

filed a First Amended § 2254 Petition (Doc. 10). 

The Court, in its discretion, will grant the “Request for 45 Day Time Extension” and,

therefore, will consider Petitioner’s First Amended § 2254 Petition to be timely filed.

However, the Court will dismiss as premature the First Amended § 2254 Petition and this

action.

Case 2:10-cv-02185-JWS--MHB Document 12 Filed 01/07/11 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

- 2 -

I. First Amended § 2254 Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case

#CR2005-006551-002 DT, of one count of inciting/participating in a riot and one count of

aggravated assault. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of

which was twelve years. In his First Amended § 2254 Petition, Petitioner names Charles

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

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief in his First Amended § 2254 Petition. He also

alleges that he has a “request for review of denial of jurisdiction” pending in the Arizona

Court of Appeals.

II. Discussion

Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust

remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526

U.S. 838, 842 (1999). “In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an

opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas

petition.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. The failure to exhaust subjects the Petition to

dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983).

If a prisoner has post-conviction proceedings pending in state court, the federal

exhaustion requirement is not satisfied. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th

Cir. 1983) (pending appeal); Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288, 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (pending

post-conviction proceeding). The prisoner must await the outcome of the pending state-court

challenge before proceeding in federal court, “even where the issue to be challenged in the

writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts.” Sherwood, 716 F.3d at

634. The pending state-court proceeding could affect the conviction or sentence and,

therefore, could ultimately affect or moot these proceedings. Id.

In light of Petitioner’s pending petition for review, the First Amended § 2254 Petition

is premature and must be dismissed. See id.; Schnepp. The Court will dismiss the case

without prejudice.

. . . . 

Case 2:10-cv-02185-JWS--MHB Document 12 Filed 01/07/11 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Request for 45 Day Time Extension (Doc. 9) is granted.

(2) Petitioner’s First Amended § 2254 Petitioner (Doc. 10) and this case are

dismissed without prejudice.

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

(4) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 5th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02185-JWS--MHB Document 12 Filed 01/07/11 Page 3 of 3