Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04207/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04207-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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 TCK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Allen Hoke, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al. 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4207-PHX-MHM(JRI)

ORDER

Petitioner, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona,

has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The

Court will order an answer.

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

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

balance is less than $25.00. See Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.5(b) (excess of $25.00

requires payment of the filing fee). Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #1) will be granted. 

B. Procedural Background

On July 13, 1994, Petitioner was convicted in CR 1993-91155 and CR-1993-93266

of sexual conduct with a minor and attempted sexual conduct with a minor and sexual

exploitation of a minor. He was sentenced to 14 years on 12 counts and 7 years probation

Case 2:05-cv-04207-MHM Document 6 Filed 04/12/06 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 -

on 13 counts. Petitioner was released on August 22, 2002 to serve his probationary term.

Petitioner violated his probation on June 12, 2003.His post-conviction petition was denied

by the superior court and his second appeal therefrom challenging his probation revocation

was denied by the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In his habeas petition, Petitioner raises one ground for relief. Petitioner asserts that

he has either exhausted the claims or that exhaustion is not required. 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 claims were procedurally

barred). Accordingly, an answer is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

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

(2) A copy of the Petition and this Order be served by the Clerk of Court upon the

Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail pursuant to

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(3) Respondent shall answer the Petition within forty (40) days of the date of service.

Respondent shall 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 constitute a waiver of the

defense. See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Morrison

v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). If not limited to affirmative defenses, the

answer shall fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases.

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

answer.

Case 2:05-cv-04207-MHM Document 6 Filed 04/12/06 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 -

(5) Petitioner shall serve upon Respondent, or if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for

consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original document and copy, to

be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of

the pleading or document was mailed to Respondent or the counsel. Any paper received by

a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the

Court may be disregarded by the Court.

(6) At all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner shall immediately

advise the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be

captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice shall contain only

information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. The notice shall not

include any motions for any other relief. Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may

result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

(7) Aside from the two copies of the petition or amended petition that must be

submitted, a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany

each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. Failure to comply with this requirement

may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

(8) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin pursuant to Local Rules

of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings and a report and recommendation.

DATED this 6th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04207-MHM Document 6 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3