Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02944/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02944-3/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

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terry Lee Lacy, )

)

 Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CV 05-2944 PHX SMM (VAM)

)

Darla Elliott, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

 Respondents. )

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, U.S. DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE.

Terry Lee Lacy ("petitioner") filed a pro se Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner

raises four grounds for relief in the petition. (Doc. 1 at pp. 5-

8). In lieu of an answer, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. 

(Doc. 12). Petitioner filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. 

(Doc. 15).

BACKGROUND

In January, 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty in Maricopa

County Superior Court to the charge of burglary in the second

degree and was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison. (Doc. 1 at p.

1). Petitioner filed a notice of post-conviction relief pursuant

to Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.1 in the trial court on or about January 13,

2004. (Id. at p. 2). Petitioner followed up by filing a petition

on February 4, 2005, which the trial court denied on February 11,

2005. (Id.). 

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On March 25, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for review in

the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Doc. 12, Attachment at p. 1). The

Arizona Court of Appeals denied the petition for review on

November 15, 2005. (Doc. 12, Attachment at p. 2). Petitioner

attempted to seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court. The

Arizona Supreme Court granted petitioner additional time to file a

petition for review up to February 22, 2006. (Id.). Although no

proof has been provided, petitioner claims he filed the petition

for review "on or about January 11, 2006," and that this petition

is still pending. (See Doc. 15 at p. 1). 

On September 26, 2005, while his state Rule 32 petition was

still pending in the Arizona Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a

federal habeas corpus petition raising four grounds for relief. 

(Doc. 1 at pp. 5-8). On January 30, 2006, respondents filed a

Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative a Motion to Stay and Abey

the petition. (Doc. 12). Both parties maintain that petitioner

still has Rule 32 proceedings pending before the Arizona Supreme

Court. Respondents contend petitioner's federal habeas claims are

unexhausted and premature. (See Doc. 12 at p. 2).

DISCUSSION

Based on the information provided by respondents, and

petitioner's acknowledgment in his response, it appears petitioner

still has ongoing proceedings before the Arizona Supreme Court

challenging his guilty plea in this case. Petitioner asks the

Court to stay and abey rather than dismiss his federal petition. 

Upon review, the Court believes dismissal is appropriate. 

The stay and abey procedure referenced by the parties was

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.

269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005). However, unlike this case, Rhines

dealt with whether it was appropriate to stay and abey a mixed

petition, that is a petition in which some issues were exhausted

and others were not exhausted. See Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1531 ("We

confront here the problem of a "mixed" petition for habeas corpus

relief in which a state prisoner presents a federal court with a

single petition containing some claims that have been exhausted in

the state courts and some that have not."); see also Pliler v.

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 230 (2004) (also discussing the propriety of

staying and abeying a "mixed" petition). 

In the case at bar, petitioner's one and only Rule 32

proceeding challenging the validity of his guilty plea is still

pending in the Arizona Supreme Court. As a result, all of the

issues raised in his federal habeas petition are unexhausted and

his petition is not "mixed." Under these circumstances dismissal

is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) ("An application for

writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to

the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it

appears that - (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies

available in the courts of the state; ..."). Although an Arizona

habeas applicant need only present his claim to the Arizona Court

of Appeals to fully exhaust state remedies (unless he has been

given life imprisonment or a death sentence) petitioner in this

case chose to present his claims to the Arizona Supreme Court. 

Comity requires dismissal. See Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1533 (Citing

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) for the proposition that

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/11/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

"[b]ecause it would be unseemly in our dual system of government

for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction

without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a

constitutional violation, federal courts apply the doctrine of

comity. [Citations omitted]. That doctrine teaches that one court

should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction

until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers,

and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity

to pass upon the matter."). 

In this case, petitioner will suffer no prejudice from a

dismissal without prejudice because the entire time his Rule 32

has been pending in state court, including the time during which

his petition for review is pending before the Arizona Supreme

Court, tolls the running of the limitations period. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2). Petitioner states he filed a Notice of PostConviction Relief in the trial court on January 13, 2004, just

days after he pleaded guilty to burglary. (See Doc. 1 at p. 1). 

Petitioner has had Rule 32 proceedings pending in state court from

that time to the present. As a result, petitioner will have

nearly one year from the time the Arizona Supreme Court rules on

the petition for review to seek federal habeas relief. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Respondents' Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 12) be granted and that the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

exhaust state remedies.

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is

immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/11/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

notice of appeal filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the

district court’s order and judgment. The parties shall have ten

(10) days from the date of service of this Report and

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections

with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within

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

file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate

Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo

consideration of the factual issues and will constitute 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

Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/11/06 Page 5 of 5