Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01052/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01052-0/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 RP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1052-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner George Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexTucson, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. #1). The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. The Court will call for an answer to the

Petition.

I. Petition

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his October 12, 2007 judgment of conviction for

Burglary in the third degree entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court in matter

#CR 2005-008016-001 DT. Petitioner alleges that he was sentenced to an eight-year term

of imprisonment.

Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent. The Attorney General of the State

of Arizona is named as an Additional Respondent.

Petitioner presents four grounds for habeas corpus relief in his Petition:

Case 2:10-cv-01052-GMS Document 3 Filed 06/08/10 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 -

(1) “Prosecutorial misconduct/malicious prosecution [i]n violation of the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States ‘(Right of due process)’”;

(2) “Ineffective assistance of counsel [i]n violation of the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States[] (Violation of rules and procedures)”; 

(3) “Sentence of a prior conviction is in violation of the United States of Arizona

Constitution [i]n violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (1973

Rules of criminal procedure/‘appellant[] will not be penalized for exercising the right to

appeal’)”; and

(4) “Malicious arrest [i]n violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

United States.”

Petitioner affirmatively alleges that the issues raised in all of his grounds have been

presented to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The Court will require an answer to the Petition.

II. 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.

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

Case 2:10-cv-01052-GMS Document 3 Filed 06/08/10 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 -

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) 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. 

(2) 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.

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

answer.

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan 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 8th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01052-GMS Document 3 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 3