Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01755/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01755-1/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

Robert Sanchez Lopez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1755-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner

Robert Sanchez Lopez. (Doc. 1). Magistrate Judge Anderson has issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) in which he recommended that the Court dismiss the petition

without prejudice because Petitioner has an ongoing Rule 32 proceeding in Maricopa County

Superior Court. (Doc. 14). After Magistrate Judge Anderson issued the R & R, Maricopa

County Superior Court Judge Glenn M. Davis denied Petitioner’s Motion for PostConviction Relief. (Doc. 17, Ex. 1). The petition cannot be dismissed for failure to exhaust

based upon a state court action that is no longer ongoing, so the petition will be returned to

Judge Anderson.

BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2010, Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court,

case #CR 2009-048664-001DT, of Possession of Marijuana in an Amount Less than One

Case 2:11-cv-01755-GMS Document 18 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

Ounce, and Forgery Possession of One Forged Instrument. Petitioner was sentenced to terms

of imprisonment of 3 years and 5 years, respectively. (Doc. 1). The Arizona Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction on November 30, 2010, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied

review on August 1, 2011. (Doc. 1-1 at 58–73). On September 6, 2011, Petitioner filed a

Petition for Habeas Corpus in the Federal District Court of Arizona, raising four grounds for

relief. (Doc. 1). On November 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a Rule 32 Petition for PostConviction Relief in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 11, Ex. A). On December 23,

Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, or alternately stay and abey it, because the state

court post-conviction motion remained pending. (Doc. 11). On February 2, Magistrate Judge

Anderson issued an R & R recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion. On

March 12, 2012, the Superior Court denied Petitioner’s state court petition. (Doc. 17, Ex. 1).

Petitioner does not state that he has appealed the decision of the Maricopa County Superior

Court, and no case under his name appears on the docket of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c), a state petitioner has thirty days in which

to appeal the denial of a Rule 32 motion from the Superior Court, so Petitioner may no longer

appeal the Superior Court’s denial.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody in violation of the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (2006). The writ

may be granted by “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit

judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Review of Petitions for

Habeas Corpus is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2244 et seq. (2006).

Habeas relief is not available to petitioners who do not properly exhaust their state

court procedural remedies prior to filing their federal petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). In

order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must give state courts the opportunity

to correct alleged violations of the prisoner’s federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,

Case 2:11-cv-01755-GMS Document 18 Filed 05/18/12 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

365 (1995) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)); see Coleman v. Thompson,

501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991) (holding that “a state prisoner’s federal habeas petition should be

dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted available state remedies as to any of his federal

claims”) (citations omitted); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A

habeas petitioner must give the state courts the first opportunity to review any claim of

federal constitutional error before seeking federal habeas review of that claim.”) (citing Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982)). Except in cases “carrying a life sentence or the death

penalty, ‘claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for the purposes of federal habeas

once the Arizona State Court of Appeals has ruled on them.’” Castillo v. McFadden, 399

F.3d 993, 998 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.

1999)).

A petitioner may exhaust a claim by filing a direct appeal or a petition for postconviction review in state court, but need not do both. See Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896,

916 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Whether a claim is exhausted through a direct appellate procedure, a

postconviction procedure, or both, the claim should be raised at all appellate stages afforded

under state law as of right by that procedure.”) (emphasis in original; internal quotation

omitted). Nevertheless, if litigation is ongoing in state court, a petitioner has not exhausted

his claim. Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[A] would-be habeas

corpus petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are

exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been

finally settled in the state courts.”). When a petitioner files both a direct appeal and a state

petition for post-conviction relief, the failure to exhaust the a claim through one procedure

does not render it unexhausted when it has been exhausted through the other. See McNeal v.

Adams, 623 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2010). In McNeal, a petitioner filed a California state

habeas action and a direct appeal; while he sought review of the denial of his direct appeal

in the California Supreme Court, he did not appeal the denial of post-conviction relief. See

McNeal v. Adams, CV-06-1763-MCE-CMK, 2008 WL 1805809, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

Both the district court reviewing the initial petition and the Ninth Circuit ruled that he had

Case 2:11-cv-01755-GMS Document 18 Filed 05/18/12 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

exhausted the federal claims that were fairly presented in both petitions and ruled on the

merits because “the state court has ruled on this issue, and it is ripe for review.” McNeal, 623

F.3d at 1287.

II. Analysis

At the time that Magistrate Judge Anderson issued the R & R, Petitioner had an active

petition in state court for post-conviction relief, so Magistrate Judge Anderson properly

recommended that the federal petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

(Doc. 14). After the R & R was issued, however, Petitioner’s state court petition was denied.

(Doc. 17, Ex. 1). The state court petition therefore no longer serves as a bar to the exhaustion

requirement. Respondent has not argued that Petitioner’s claim remains unexhausted for any

other reason, including the fact that he has failed to appeal his Rule 32 petition, although the

limited caselaw suggests that such a failure would not render a previously exhausted claim

unexhausted. See McNeal, 623 F.3d at 1287, Cf Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1159

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The complete exhaustion rule is not to trap the unwary pro se

prisoner.” (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487 (2000)). Respondent’s motion to

dismiss the petition must therefore be denied, and the R & R must be rejected. Since

Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the original petition, this Court cannot rule on the

petition itself, or on issues other than those raised in Respondent’s motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Respondent’s First Motion to Dismiss Case or Stay and Abey the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 11) is denied.

2. Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation that the Motion to

Dismiss be granted is rejected (Doc. 14).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:11-cv-01755-GMS Document 18 Filed 05/18/12 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

3. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson to set a

schedule for Respondent to file an Answer to the Petition.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01755-GMS Document 18 Filed 05/18/12 Page 5 of 5