Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02616/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02616-0/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

Keith T. Parker, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden J. Stems, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2616-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner Keith T. Parker, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexYuma in San Luis, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will require an

answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR-2006-

006531-001 DT, of second-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and aggravated assault.

He was sentenced to a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling 23.5

years’ imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner names Warden J. Stems as Respondent and

the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises four grounds

for relief.

In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to

a trial by jury and to due process were violated because the trial court erred in giving a “flight

Case 2:10-cv-02616-JAT Document 3 Filed 12/10/10 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 -

or concealment” instruction to the jury. In Ground Two, he asserts that his Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the trial court, after the jury was

empaneled and over defense counsel’s objection, changed the charge from armed robbery to

attempted armed robbery. 

In Ground Three, Petitioner contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right

to a fair and impartial jury trial because his convictions were not consistent with the

evidence. In Ground Four, Petitioner claims violations of his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights because the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by using false or

unsubstantiated witness testimony.

Petitioner contends that he presented these issues to the Arizona appellate courts in

a direct appeal. 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. Bonzelet,

Case 2:10-cv-02616-JAT Document 3 Filed 12/10/10 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 -

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 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 Lawrence O. Anderson 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 9th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02616-JAT Document 3 Filed 12/10/10 Page 3 of 3