Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00207/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00207-0/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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chris Werner, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Chuck Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0207-PHX-GMS (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Chris Werner, who is confined in the GEO Group’s Central Arizona

Correctional Facility in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. #1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #3). The Court will require an answer to the Petition.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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

trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

II. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Pinal County Superior Court, case #CR-2005-00428,

of attempted molestation of a child and attempted sexual conduct with a minor. He was

sentenced, respectively, to an aggravated, fifteen-year term of imprisonment and lifetime

Case 2:10-cv-00207-GMS Document 5 Filed 02/02/10 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 -

probation. In his Petition, Petitioner names Chuck Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. 

Petitioner raises two grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges a

violation of the “Fourteenth Amendment right to due process which guarantees [an]

individual the right to fair notice of whether their conduct is prohibited by law.” In

Ground Two, he asserts that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective

assistance of counsel at sentencing. 

Petitioner alleges that he presented both grounds to the Arizona Court of Appeals. 

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

III. 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:

Case 2:10-cv-00207-GMS Document 5 Filed 02/02/10 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 -

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #3) is

granted.

(2) 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. 

(3) 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, 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 2nd day of February, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00207-GMS Document 5 Filed 02/02/10 Page 3 of 3