Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02981/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02981-0/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 LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rogelio Benavides Gutierrez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Flannican, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2981-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner, presently confined in the Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos,

Texas, 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. The Court will order an answer.

A. Procedural Background

Petitioner alleges that on May 10, 2002, after a jury trial in the Maricop a County

Superior Court, matter No. CR 2001-005694, he was convicted of two counts of aggravated

assault and sentenced to a term of nineteen years. His direct appeal was denied by t he

Arizona Court of Ap p eals, and his petition for review was denied by the Arizona Supreme

Court.

In his habeas petition, Petitioner raises four grounds for relief: (1) unfair grand jury

proceedings; (2) insufficient evidence regarding Petitioner’s history of seizures; (3) denial

of a fair t rial when after trial, Ford Motor Company was investigated for negligent design

of the Crown Victoria; and (4) denial of a fair trial by refusing to allow Petitioner to crossCase 2:05-cv-02981-DGC Document 5 Filed 10/18/05 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 -

examine a wit ness and by preventing investigation of the real cause of the explosion of the

police vehicle. Petitioner asserts that he has exhausted the claims. Even assuming that the

exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhaust ed claim may be

procedurally barred. In light of the possibility of procedural bar, a summary dismissal

would be inappropriat e. 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) A copy of the Petition and this Order be served by t he 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. 

(2) Respondent shall answer the Petition within forty (40) day s of t he 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 limit ed 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.

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

answer.

(4) Petit ioner shall serve upon Respondent, or if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or ot her 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 cert ificate stating the date a true and correct

cop y of the pleading or document was mailed to Respondent or the counsel. Any p ap er

Case 2:05-cv-02981-DGC Document 5 Filed 10/18/05 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 -

received by a Dist rict Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the

Clerk of the Court may be disregarded by the Court.

(5) At all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner shall immediat ely

advise t he 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 mot ions 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).

(6) 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 st ricken without further notice to Petitioner.

(7) This matter is referred to M agistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Local

Rules of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02981-DGC Document 5 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 3