Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02058/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02058-0/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

John Raymond Ruelas, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2058-PHX-JAT (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner John Raymond Ruelas, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), a Supplemental Brief in Support of his Petition for

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3), a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4), an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5), and a Motion to Release (Doc. 6). The Court will grant

the Application to Proceed, require an answer to the Petition, and deny the Motion for

Appointment of Counsel and Motion to Release.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust

account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

. . . . 

Case 2:10-cv-02058-JAT Document 7 Filed 10/06/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

II. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR-1990-013482,

of one count of kidnaping, three counts of sexual assault, one count of robbery, and one

count of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to 28-year terms of imprisonment for the

kidnaping, robbery, and sexual assaults, and a 20-year term of imprisonment for the

aggravated assault conviction, all six sentences to be served consecutively. In his Petition,

Petitioner names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an

Additional Respondent. 

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. In Ground One, he claims he was denied the

right to the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. In Ground Two, he alleges that

he was denied his right to due process, asserting that he was denied an evidentiary hearing,

there was an unreasonable determination of the facts, and there was interference with his

right to appeal. In Ground Three, Petitioner contends that his Sixth Amendment right to a

trial by jury was violated by the trial court’s imposition of the sentences, that the prohibition

against double punishment was violated, and that he was denied his due process right to

notice. In Ground Four, Petitioner alleges a violation of the prohibition against double

punishment.

Petitioner contends that he has presented all of these issues to the Arizona Court of

Appeals and the issues in Grounds One and Two to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court

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

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner seeks counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and Rule 6 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed

counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is

necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th

Cir. 1986). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the interests of

justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Petitioner has not made the necessary

Case 2:10-cv-02058-JAT Document 7 Filed 10/06/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

showing for appointment of counsel at this time, and, therefore, his Motion for Appointment

of Counsel will be denied without prejudice. 

In addition, although Petitioner alleges that counsel is necessary “to make pre-hearing

discovery meaningful,” he has not sought to conduct discovery. This ground for appointing

counsel, therefore, is premature.

If, at a later date, the Court determines that counsel is necessary for effective

discovery or that an evidentiary hearing is required, counsel will be appointed in accordance

with Rules 6(a) and 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254.

IV. Motion to Release

Petitioner requests that the Court “stay the further execution of sentences . . . and

order his release upon his own recognizance.” He contends that there are “reasonable

grounds to believe that the sentences imposed may be reversed” and that his Petition is

“based upon illegal imposition of sentences.”

It is unclear whether this Court has the authority to release a state prisoner pending

the resolution of a habeas proceeding. See In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (9th Cir.

2001). Even if this Court does have that authority, such release is “reserved for extraordinary

cases involving special circumstances or a high probably of success.” Land v. Deeds, 878

F.2d 318, 318 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Roe, 257 F.3d at 1080. Petitioner has not

demonstrated that he is entitled to release under this standard and, therefore, the Court will

deny the Motion to Release.

V. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:10-cv-02058-JAT Document 7 Filed 10/06/10 Page 3 of 5
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 - 4 -

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 4) is denied.

(2) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5) is granted.

(3) Petitioner’s Motion to Release (Doc. 6) is denied.

(4) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the

Supplemental Brief in Support of his Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3), 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. 

(5) 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, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (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.

Case 2:10-cv-02058-JAT Document 7 Filed 10/06/10 Page 4 of 5
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 - 5 -

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

answer.

(7) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey 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 5th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02058-JAT Document 7 Filed 10/06/10 Page 5 of 5