Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00364/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00364-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wendell Clayton Gordon, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

C. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 10-364-PHX-SRB (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On February 19, 2010, Petitioner Wendell Clayton Gordon, who is confined in the

Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County

Superior Court, case #CR 1995-000954, of a probation violation and was sentenced to a 10-

year term of imprisonment. (Doc. 7.) In his Petition, Petitioner names C. Ryan and J.

Freeland as Respondents and the Arizona Attorney General as an additional Respondent.

Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner’s sentence of lifetime probation

violated the constitution and laws of the United States; and (2) the trial court abused its

discretion when it imposed a 10-year sentence on Petitioner. (Doc. 1.)

On June 17, 2010, Respondents filed a “Notice of Pending State Court Proceedings

that Could Moot the Instant Federal Habeas Action” (Doc. 17). Attached as Exhibit A to

their Notice, Respondents submitted the active post-conviction relief docket from the

Arizona Court of Appeals indicating that Petitioner filed a petition for review with the

Case 2:10-cv-00364-SRB Document 20 Filed 07/13/10 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 - 2 -

appellate court on December 7, 2009. (Doc. 17, Exh A.) The docket demonstrates that the

pending petition for review originated from Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR

1995-000954. (Doc. 17, Exh. A.)

Given Respondent’s evidence establishing that a petition for review relating to

Petitioner’s instant habeas petition is currently pending in state court, the Court ordered

Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as premature. (Doc. 18.)

On July 6, 2010, Petitioner filed his “Response” asserting that “to the best of his knowledge”

he has “no pending P.C.R. in State proceedings at this time.” (Doc. 19.) In support of his

assertion, Petitioner submits the Maricopa County Superior Court docket in case #CR 1995-

000954. (Doc. 19, Exh. A.)

Having reviewed the parties’ pleadings, the Court finds Petitioner’s “Response” to the

Court’s Order to show cause unpersuasive. Petitioner has submitted the docket from the

Superior Court. Respondent, however, has submitted the active docket from the Arizona

Court of Appeals establishing that Petitioner’s petition for review relating to the instant

habeas petition is still pending.

Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust

remedies available in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel,

526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Proper exhaustion requires a petitioner to have “fairly presented”

to the state courts the exact federal claim he raises on habeas by describing the operative

facts and federal legal theory upon which the claim is based. See, e.g., Picard v. Connor, 404

U.S. 270, 275-78 (1971) (“[W]e have required a state prisoner to present the state courts with

the same claim he urges upon the federal courts.”). In cases not carrying a life sentence or

the death penalty, claims are exhausted once the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them.

See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999).

A petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies if he has a state appeal or postconviction proceeding pending at the time he files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in

federal court. See, e.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (even where

Case 2:10-cv-00364-SRB Document 20 Filed 07/13/10 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 -

claim to be challenged has been finally settled in state courts, petitioner must await outcome

of his appeal in state court before remedies are exhausted); Schnepp v. State of Oregon, 333

F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1964) (per curiam) (pending post-conviction proceedings precluded grant

of writ of habeas corpus).

In light of Petitioner’s post-conviction proceeding currently pending in the Arizona

Court of Appeals, which could affect Petitioner’s convictions and which could ultimately

affect these proceedings, it is inappropriate for this Court to rule on Petitioner’s claims at this

time. See Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634; Schnepp, 333 F.2d at 288.

Having determined that this habeas action is premature, the Court will recommend

that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s pleading entitled “Summary

Judgement” (Doc. 16) be DENIED as moot.

DATED this 13th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00364-SRB Document 20 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 3