Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02388/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02388-0/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

Charles L. Ryan is substituted as the interim Director of the Arizona Department of

Corrections, succeeding Dora B. Schriro.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony M. Leonard, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-2388-PHX-PGR (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Anthony Leonard has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, challenging his convictions in Maricopa County Superior Court for two counts of

assault and the trial court’s imposition of a 5-year prison term. He raises four grounds for

relief: (1) a violation of his due process rights based on the court’s refusal to give a selfdefense instruction and the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise that

issue; (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (3) a violation of his Miranda rights;

and (4) a violation of his due process rights in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal

because of insufficient evidence (Doc. #1). Respondent Charles L. Ryan1

 seeks to have the

petition dismissed without prejudice, citing Leonard’s pending state-court proceedings. The

Court recommends that the petition be dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:08-cv-02388-PGR Document 12 Filed 03/19/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

 On September 1, 2006, following his conviction by a jury, the trial court sentenced

Leonard to a mitigated five-year term (Doc. #9, Exh A). Following the court of appeals’

decision affirming his convictions and sentences Leonard sought review in the Arizona

Supreme Court; review was denied on November 18, 2008 (Id., Exh B-F). Two weeks later,

on December 29, 2008, Leonard filed his federal habeas petition (Doc. #1). A review of the

Maricopa County Superior Court docket in #CR2004-009940 indicates that Leonard filed

a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on January 16, 2009, requesting the appointment of

counsel. As of this date, no action has been taken on the Notice.

A Federal District Court is not authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus sought by

someone in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court “unless it appears that the

applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the court of the State.” See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1)(A). If an appeal or collateral-review proceeding is pending in state court, a

petitioner has not exhausted his remedies until the completion of those proceedings. See

Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983).

However, this is a mixed petition, with the first two claims unexhausted. In such

cases, the Court has discretion to stay the habeas proceeding and hold the petition in

abeyance during the time in which the petitioner attempts to exhaust any still-unexhausted

claims in state court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). Under Rhines, a

petitioner must meet three requirements to be entitled to a stay and abeyance order: to show

good cause for his failure to exhaust, that his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious,

and that there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation

tactics.

The Court agrees with Respondents that Leonard has failed to meet the first

requirement. He has failed to show good cause for filing his federal petition prior to

exhausting his federal claims. Leonard contends in his reply that “the issues and violations

included here have already been raised and decided on a state level. The exhaustion of state

remedies has been fulfilled” (Doc. #10 at 5). He appears to be referring to his inclusion of

Case 2:08-cv-02388-PGR Document 12 Filed 03/19/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

several ineffective assistance claims in his petition for review filed in the Arizona Supreme

Court. See Doc. #9, Exh F. He concludes that such issues were “decided” as follows:

“Given the Arizona Supreme Court’s one word denial of Mr. Leonard’s petition for review,

it left him no other recourse than to seek a more level table of justice in federal court” (Doc.

#10 at 5). However, his mention of those issues for the first time in his petition for review

does not mean they were “decided” at the state level. The supreme court was limited in its

review to those issues raised by appellate counsel on direct review and decided by the court

of appeals. The issues raised on direct review did not include any claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel, such issues being properly raised in Rule 32 proceedings, and not on

direct review.

The Court also concludes that Leonard would suffer no prejudice from a dismissal

without prejudice. Any subsequent petition filed by Leonard following the completion of his

state court proceedings would not be considered second or successive, because the previous

petition would have been dismissed without prejudice and without a consideration of the

merits of the petition. In addition, the one-year statute of limitations would not begin to run

until the completion of any appeal of his pending post-conviction proceedings. 

Because Leonard’s post-conviction proceedings are still pending in Maricopa County

Superior Court, his habeas petition is premature and should be dismissed. For the same

reason, his requests for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing are denied as

premature. His request for release pending the resolution of his habeas petition is also

denied. “When the State has not completed its review of the petitioner’s claims, it is

inappropriate for a federal court to reach the merits of [a] petitioner’s case in a ruling on a

motion for bail.” Landano v. Rafferty, 970 F.2d 1230, 1241 (3rd Cir. 1992).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Anthony M. Leonard’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed without prejudice (Doc. #1).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is

Case 2:08-cv-02388-PGR Document 12 Filed 03/19/10 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling

debatable.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02388-PGR Document 12 Filed 03/19/10 Page 4 of 4