Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00543/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00543-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Forest Clayton, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 15-0543-PHX-SMM (ESW) 

 O R D E R 

Petitioner Forest Clayton, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, 

Cibola Unit, in San Luis, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 2). The Court will require an answer to the Petition. 

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). 

II. Petition 

Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted armed robbery and two counts each of 

robbery and armed robbery pursuant to a plea agreement in Maricopa County Superior 

Court, case ##CR2011-048276, CR2011-123862, and CR2011-125379, and was 

sentenced to a thirteen-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner’s first state petition for 

post-conviction review was denied by the trial court and, on December 16, 2014, the 

Case 2:15-cv-00543-SMM Document 4 Filed 04/27/15 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 

Arizona Court of Appeals granted Petitioner’s petition for review of the denial of postconviction relief, but denied relief. State v. Clayton, No. 1CA-CR 13-0354-PRPC, 2014 

WL 7149113, at *1 (Ariz. App. Dec. 16, 2014). 

In his Petition, Petitioner names Charles L. Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona 

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

asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The Court will require 

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

III. 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 comply with any order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED:

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

 (2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this 

Case 2:15-cv-00543-SMM Document 4 Filed 04/27/15 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 

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 Eileen S. Willett 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 27th day of April, 2015. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00543-SMM Document 4 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 3