Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01227/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01227-0/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 MD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Michael Lona, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 14-01227-PHX-SPL (DKD) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Richard Michael Lona, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Phoenix, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will require an 

answer to the Petition. 

I. Petition 

Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted in Pinal County Superior Court, 

case #CR200801581, of aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident, and 

unlawful flight and was sentenced to a 9.75-year term of imprisonment. In his Petition, 

Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an 

Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. 

In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that the trial court improperly restricted 

discovery and the cross-examination of a witness, in violation of Petitioner’s Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights.1

 In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that his due process 

 

1

 Petitioner actually wrote “U.S.C.A. 5 and 14,” but it appears he is referring to the Fifth 

Case 2:14-cv-01227-SPL Document 3 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

rights were violated, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Ground 

Three, Petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of 

his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In Ground Four, Petitioner alleges 

that his urine sample was contaminated. 

The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

II. 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) 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. 

 and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

Case 2:14-cv-01227-SPL Document 3 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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) 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, 547 U.S. 198, 209-11 (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. 

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

answer. 

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan 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 31st day of July, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01227-SPL Document 3 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 3