Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00984/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00984-0/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 SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Edward Oyenik, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Thomas Schaff, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0984-PHX-MHM (HCE)

ORDER

Petitioner Ronald Edward Oyenik, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex in Tucson, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee and filed an Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis. The Court will require an answer to the Petition.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Moreover, under Local Rule of Civil Procedure

3.5(b), payment of the $5.00 filing fee, set pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), must be made

if a petitioner has more than $25.00 in his inmate accounts. Petitioner’s trust account

certificate indicates that he has $95.34 in his inmate account. Accordingly, the Application

to Proceed will be denied.

II. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR-99-092900,

of sexual assault, kidnapping, and attempted sexual assault and was sentenced to 6- and 14-

Case 2:07-cv-00984-MHM Document 3 Filed 05/23/07 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

year terms of imprisonment, to run consecutively. In his Petition, Petitioner names Thomas

Schaff as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent.

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief.

In Ground I, Petitioner alleges violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments;

he claims ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s alleged conflict of interest. In

Ground II, Petitioner alleges a violation of the Fifth Amendment in that the court

“misidentification of due process on Petitioner’s post conviction proceeding raises a claim

on the trial judge dismissal of Petitioner’s motions for extension of time.” In Ground III,

Petitioner alleges a violation of the Fifth Amendment because in his second post-conviction

relief, his attorney failed to identify the relevance of Petitioner’s claims or recognize that they

were not time barred. In Ground IV, Petitioner alleges a violation of his Sixth Amendment

rights when he received an aggravated sentence based on facts not found by the jury or

admitted by him.

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). 

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

Case 2:07-cv-00984-MHM Document 3 Filed 05/23/07 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 -

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.

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

is denied.

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00984-MHM Document 3 Filed 05/23/07 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 -

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada 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 22nd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00984-MHM Document 3 Filed 05/23/07 Page 4 of 4