Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01049/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01049-0/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 1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this case. 

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karen Sanchez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1049-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner Karen Sanchez, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex,

Perryville Unit, in Goodyear, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

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

3.)1

 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 pursuant to a plea agreement in Maricopa County Superior

Court, case #CR2002-006129, of second degree murder and was sentenced to a 20 -year term

Case 2:09-cv-01049-MHM Document 4 Filed 05/22/09 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 -

of imprisonment. In her Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the

Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. 

Petitioner raises one ground for relief. She alleges that her Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process were violated where her sentence was

aggravated based on factors found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence rather

than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 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:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Petition,

is granted. (Doc.# 3.)

Case 2:09-cv-01049-MHM Document 4 Filed 05/22/09 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 -

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition 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. (Doc.# 1.) 

(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 Edward C. Voss 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 19th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01049-MHM Document 4 Filed 05/22/09 Page 3 of 3