Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01361/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01361-0/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 

MD 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Charles Marshall, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 13-1361-PHX-DGC (JFM) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Charles Marshall, who is confined in the Central Arizona Correctional 

Facility in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee and filed 

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will require an answer 

to the Petition and will deny the Application to Proceed as moot. 

I. Petition 

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #1997-000777, 

of seventeen counts of sexual conduct with a minor, three counts of molestation of a 

child, and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, and was sentenced to a 337-year 

term of imprisonment. Petitioner names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona 

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises one ground for relief. 

Petitioner alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel through all phases of 

his trial. 

Case 2:13-cv-01361-DGC Document 5 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

It is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted this claim in state court.1 Even if the 

exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted claims may be 

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

would be inappropriate. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989) 

(remanding where petitioner failed to exhaust claims and it was not clear whether the 

claims were procedurally barred). Accordingly, the Court will require Respondents to 

answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

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. 

 

1

 Petitioner states that he has previously filed a habeas petition in federal court 

regarding the conviction that he is challenging in this Petition. The Court, however, 

could find no record of Petitioner filing a previous petition in this Court, but notes that 

Maricopa County Superior Court records available online indicate that a habeas 

application was made in Petitioner’s state court case. See http://www.superiorcourt. maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1997-000777 (last visited Sept. 9, 2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01361-DGC Document 5 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

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) The Application to Proceed (Doc. 2) is denied as moot. 

(2) 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. 

 (3) 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, 547 U.S. 198, 209-11 (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. 

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

answer. 

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf 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 11th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01361-DGC Document 5 Filed 09/11/13 Page 3 of 3