Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01214/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01214-0/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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rockney Willard Martineau, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Warden Darlene Elliot, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-1214-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

Petitioner Rockney Willard Martineau, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Kingman, has filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody and has paid the filing fee. The Court will dismiss the

Petition without prejudice.

I. Petition

Plaintiff challenges his December 14, 2007 judgment of conviction in Maricopa

County Superior Court, case numbers CR 2006-030247 and CR 2007-101503, for Fraudulent

Schemes, Theft of a Means of Transportation, and Forgery.

Petitioner states that he presently has a Rule 32 petition pending in the Maricopa

County Superior Court, which he filed on June 6, 2008.

II. Exhaustion

Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust

remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526

Case 2:08-cv-01214-SMM--JRI Document 5 Filed 08/13/08 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must describe both the operative facts

and the federal legal theory so that the state courts have a “fair opportunity” to apply

controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim. Kelly v. Small,

315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003). In cases not carrying a life sentence or death penalty,

claims are exhausted once the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them. See Swoopes

v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999).

In light of the pending proceedings in state court, which could affect Petitioner’s

sentence and which could also ultimately affect these proceedings, it would be inappropriate

for this Court to rule on Petitioner's claims at this time. See, e.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716

F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (even where claim to be challenged has been finally settled in

state courts, petitioner must await outcome of his appeal in state court before remedies are

exhausted); Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (per curiam) (pending postconviction proceedings precluded grant of writ of habeas corpus). Because this habeas

action is premature, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. #1) and this action are dismissed

without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must close the case and enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01214-SMM--JRI Document 5 Filed 08/13/08 Page 2 of 2