Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01701-0/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

John P. Windfeldt, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1701-PHX-EHC (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Voss’ Report and Recommendation for

dismissal of this action with prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to present his constructive

amendment claim to the state courts in his direct appeal. (Dkt. 39). Petitioner filed an

objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 41) and numerous other motions:

“Motion to Show Cause & Prejudice to Overcome State Procedural Default & Add to

Answer of Magistrate” (Dkt. 40); (2) “Mo[tion] to Add and Fix Petition, and Then Some”

(Dkt. 42); “Motion Amend Add Ground 2 Ineffective Counsel’ to Habeas or Dismiss Habeas

and Refile New Habeas, Since Petitioner is Still Under the 1 Year Filing Deadline” (Dkt. 43);

“Motion to Not Dismiss Habeas, and Present Newly Damaging/Discovered Evidence” (Dkt.

44); “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Regarding Ineffective Counsel and/or Loss of Plea,

and Detail Counsels Failure to Advise for Plea” (Dkt. 45); “Motion to Stay, and or Amend

Case 2:06-cv-01701-EHC Document 51 Filed 10/19/07 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 -

This Habeas Petition & Short Evidentiary Hearing” (Dkt. 47); and “Motion to Rebut States

Ruling with Clear and Convincing Evidence and Evidentiary Hearing Request” (Dkt. 48).

In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1), Petitioner raised only a single

ground for relief based upon constructive amendment. As discussed in the Report and

Recommendation, this claim is procedurally defaulted for not having been raised at the state

court level. Thus, having considered the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, and Petitioner’s objection, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s analysis as it

relates to Petitioner’s constructive amendment claim.

Petitioner now seeks leave to amend his original petition to add a second count for

ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Dkts. 42, 43, 47). It appears that Petitioner raised the

issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at the state level, but did not properly present

ineffective assistance of counsel in his original habeas petition. The Court finds good cause

for the amendment and will grant Petitioner 60 days from the date of this Order to file an

amended habeas petition that asserts his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Upon

Petitioner filing such an amended petition, and Respondents having the appropriate time to

respond, the Court will refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for an amended Report

and Recommendation. The Court will consider Petitioner’s other pending motions when, and

if, an amended petition is filed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the discussion and analysis of Petitioner’s constructive

amendment claim contained in Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 39) is adopted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s claim for constructive amendment

is denied with prejudice. Petitioner shall not raise this procedurally defaulted claim again.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s various motions seeking leave to

amend (Dkts. 42, 43, 47) are granted to the limited extent that these motions request leave

to amend to add a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of this Order, Petitioner may file

an amended Petition asserting a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Case 2:06-cv-01701-EHC Document 51 Filed 10/19/07 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 FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner does not file an amended Petition

within 60 days, the Clerk shall dismiss Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) with

prejudice.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01701-EHC Document 51 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 3