Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08056/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08056-0/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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robin Lynn Robbins, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-8056-PCT-GMS (JFM)

ORDER

Petitioner Robin Lynn Robbins, who is represented by attorney Thomas A. Gorman,

has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and has

paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will require an answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Yavapai County Superior Court, case #CR-82005-0003,

of four counts of second-degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count

each of endangerment, criminal damage, possession of dangerous drugs, possession of drug

paraphernalia, driving under the influence of methamphetamine and having been convicted

within the past six months, and driving under the influence of methamphetamine. He was

sentenced to a combination of concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling

71.5 years’ imprisonment. 

In his Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises two grounds for relief. He

Case 3:12-cv-08056-GMS Document 5 Filed 03/28/12 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 -

claims his plea was involuntary because he received incompetent and incomplete advice

regarding the probable sentence. He also asserts that there was not substantial evidence to

prove Petitioner “was guilty of second degree murder and aggravated assault based on his

mental health issues and several other intervening factors, which [Petitioner’s trial counsel]

failed to investigate or present, which would have proven [Petitioner] innocent.”

Petitioner asserts that he has presented these issues to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

II. Request for Complete State File

In the Memorandum attached to his § 2254 Petition, Petitioner requests that the Court

require Respondent to provide a complete copy of the state record, including “transcripts,

exhibits and the ROA from both the trial court and all litigation in the Court of Appeals.”

Petitioner also requests that the Court provide him with time to supplement his § 2254

Petition, if necessary, after he has been provided with a complete record.

Requiring Respondent to provide the entire state court record at this time is

unnecessary. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, Respondent only need include

those portions of the record relevant to those defenses. If the answer is not limited to

affirmative defenses, Respondent is required to fully comply with Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Although the Court can require Respondents, pursuant to

Rule 5(c), to provide “other parts” of the record, the Court will only consider doing so after

Respondent has provided those portions of the record Respondent considers relevant.

Thus, the Court will deny as premature Petitioner’s request for a complete copy of the

state record.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s request that Respondent be required to provide a complete copy

of the state record (included in the Memorandum attached to Doc. 1) is denied as

premature.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 3:12-cv-08056-GMS Document 5 Filed 03/28/12 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 -

(2) 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. 

(3) 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, 547 U.S. 198, 209-11 (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.

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

answer.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf 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 28th day of March, 2012.

Case 3:12-cv-08056-GMS Document 5 Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 3