Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02377/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-02377-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joshua Stauffer,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-02377-PHX-ROS (DMF)

ORDER 

On February 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court deny Respondents’ Motion to Stay. 

(Doc. 31). Neither party filed objections. Therefore, the R&R will be adopted and the

Motion to Stay will be denied. In addition, Petitioner will be given the opportunity to 

dismiss one of his claims. If Petitioner does not dismiss that claim, the Court will dismiss 

the entire petition.

Petitioner’s federal petition contains three claims that he could have—and should 

have—raised on direct appeal after his criminal conviction. Petitioner did not raise those 

claims during his direct appeal and there is no longer a procedurally proper way for him to 

raise them in state court. Therefore, those claims appear to be “technically exhausted.” 

Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2014). Petitioner’s federal petition also 

includes a claim based on the alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Instead of 

requiring such a claim be presented on direct appeal, “Arizona law only permits defendants 

to bring ineffective assistance of counsel claims in . . . post-conviction review 

Case 2:19-cv-02377-ROS-DMF Document 32 Filed 04/17/20 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

proceedings.” Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013). Petitioner initiated 

such a proceeding in the Gila County Superior Court, but that proceeding is still pending. 

Thus, the ineffective assistance of trial counsel appears to be unexhausted.

A federal petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims “is typically called 

a ‘mixed petition.’” Dixon v. Baker, 847 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2017). And “[f]ederal 

courts may not adjudicate mixed habeas petitions.” Henderson v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 872, 

873 (9th Cir. 2013). The Supreme Court has approved of two options when a court is faced 

with a mixed petition. Dixon, 847 F.3d at 719. First, the petition can be stayed “pending 

exhaustion in state court of the petitioner’s unexhausted claims.” Id. Second, the petitioner 

can be given the opportunity “to delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the 

exhausted claims.” Id.

As correctly explained in the R&R, Petitioner has not established a stay is 

appropriate. That means the only option is for Petitioner to be given the opportunity to

delete his unexhausted claim involving the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner 

will be required to file a statement indicating that he wishes to delete his unexhausted claim 

and proceed on the exhausted claims. If Petitioner does not state he is willing to delete the 

unexhausted claim, the Court will have no choice but to dismiss the petition in its entirety.1

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) is ADOPTED. The 

Motion to Stay and Resetting of Filing Deadline for Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 27) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. The request for a 

stay is DENIED. The request to extend the answer deadline is GRANTED as set forth 

below.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than May 1, 2020, Petitioner shall file a 

statement indicating he wishes to delete his claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. 

1 Petitioner might be free to return to federal court upon the completion of his postconviction relief proceeding. Cf. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487 (2000) (“A petition 

filed after a mixed petition has been dismissed . . . before the district court adjudicated any 

claims is to be treated as ‘any other first petition’ and is not a second or successive 

petition.”).

Case 2:19-cv-02377-ROS-DMF Document 32 Filed 04/17/20 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

Respondents shall file their answer within thirty days of Petitioner filing such a statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if Petitioner does not file a statement by May 1, 

2020, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice and 

without further notice to Petitioner. 

Dated this 17th day of April, 2020.

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-02377-ROS-DMF Document 32 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 3