Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01051/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01051-0/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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nathaniel Hearn, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1051-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Nathaniel Hearn, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman in Florence, 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 dismiss the Petition

as premature.

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR2004-006251-

001-SE, of felony robbery and felony flight and was sentenced to 12- and 6-year terms of

imprisonment, respectively. In his Petition, Petitioner names Dora Schriro as Respondent

and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises one ground

for relief. Plaintiff also states that he filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Maricopa

County Superior Court on April 24, 2007, and the petition is still pending.

II. Exhaustion of State Remedies

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

U.S. 838, 842 (1999). “In other words, a state prisoner must give the state courts an

Case 2:07-cv-01051-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 06/18/07 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 -

opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas

petition.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. A prisoner has not exhausted his state court remedies

where a petition for post-conviction relief is still pending. Schnepp v. Oregon, 333 F.2d 288,

288 (9th Cir. 1964). The failure to exhaust subjects the Petitioner to dismissal. See

Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983).

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

conviction and sentences and which could also ultimately affect these proceedings, it would

be inappropriate for this Court to rule on Petitioner’s claim at this time. See Schnepp, 333

F.2d at 288 (pending post-conviction proceedings precluded grant of writ of habeas corpus).

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

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) and

this case are dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court must close this case and

enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01051-MHM--MEA Document 3 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 2