Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02389/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02389-0/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

WO SC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Corey Demar Shivers, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2389-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

On November 4, 2010, Petitioner Corey Demar Shivers, who is confined in Maricopa

County’s Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

(Doc. 1, 2.) The Court will summarily dismiss the Petition and this action without prejudice

as premature. 

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).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-02389-GMS--JRI Document 6 Filed 11/16/10 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

 1 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/092010/m4401616.pdf.

 2

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102010/m4426742.pdf.

- 2 -

II. Background 

Petitioner seeks to challenge his conviction by a jury in Maricopa County Superior

Court, Case No. CR2010-005937.1

 Petitioner’s sentencing in that case is currently scheduled

for November 22, 2010.2

II. Premature Filing of a Habeas Petition

A prisoner attacking a state conviction must first exhaust state remedies before a

federal court will entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509

(1982); Szeto v. Rushen, 709 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1983). To exhaust state remedies, a

petitioner must fairly present his claims to the highest state court within a state’s standard

review process in order to provide the state with an opportunity to rule on the merits of his

federal claims. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); see McQuown

v. McCartney, 795 F.2d 807, 809 (9th Cir. 1986); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086

(9th Cir. 1985). An Arizona petitioner sentenced to less than the death penalty may exhaust

his federal claims by presenting them in a procedurally proper way to the Arizona Court of

Appeals, either on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings, without seeking

discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F.Supp.2d

925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following 1989 statutory amendment, Arizona Court of

Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal convictions involving less than a death sentence); cf.

Swoopes, 196 F.3d at 1010 (citing pre-1989 statutory amendment); Castillo v. McFadden,

399 F.3d 993, 998 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (same).

As noted above, Petitioner has not yet been sentenced in CR2010-1005937, much less

exhausted available state court remedies. Accordingly, the Court will summarily dismiss this

action without prejudice as premature.

Case 2:10-cv-02389-GMS--JRI Document 6 Filed 11/16/10 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 - 3 -

IT IS ORDERED:

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

(2) The Petition and this action are dismissed without prejudice as premature.

(Doc. 1.)

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

(4) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 16th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02389-GMS--JRI Document 6 Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 3