Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03019/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03019-0/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.

 2

 See www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/112001/m0465006.pdf.

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jimmy Haul, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Director Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3019-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner Jimmy Haul, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-Aspen Unit, in

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

U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.# 1.)1

 He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will require an

answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

On November 1, 2001, following the reversal of his conviction for first degree murder

and first degree burglary, Petitioner pleaded no contest to second degree murder and second

degree burglary in Maricopa County Superior Court, CR1994-007881, and was sentenced

to a 25-year term of imprisonment. (Id. at 1.)2

 Petitioner’s state petition for post-conviction

Case 2:06-cv-03019-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/29/07 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

 3 See www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092005/m1944626.pdf.

 4

 See www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/criminal/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber

=CR1994-007881.

TERMPSREF - 2 -

relief was denied on September 15, 2005 as failing to state a colorable claim for relief.3

Petitioner apparently did not seek review of that ruling and two subsequently filed petitions

for post-conviction review were summarily denied pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Arizona

Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Arizona Court of Appeals denied a petition for review of

the second of these on January 2, 2007.4

 

Petitioner names Arizona Department of Corrections Director Dora Schriro and

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard as Respondents. Petitioner raises four grounds for

relief. In Counts I and II, Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in connection

with the plea agreement, specifically a failure to raise the issue whether Petitioner was

competent to enter into the plea agreement, and the failure to present mitigation evidence,

to raise Petitioner’s mental state at the time of the offense, and to litigate the voluntariness

of Petitioner’s pretrial inculpatory statements. In Counts III and IV, Petitioner challenges

his competence to enter into the plea agreement and whether his plea was knowingly,

intelligently and/or voluntarily made. 

It is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted his claims. Even assuming that the

exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted claim may be

procedurally barred. In light of the possibility of procedural bar, a summary dismissal would

be inappropriate. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989) (remanding where

petitioner failed to exhaust claims and it was not clear whether the claims were procedurally

barred). Accordingly, an answer is required. 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

Case 2:06-cv-03019-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

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. 

(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, 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.

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

Case 2:06-cv-03019-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson 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 29th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03019-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/29/07 Page 4 of 4