Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02003/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02003-0/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 TERMPSREF

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael David Lendahl, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden Palosaari, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2003-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner Michael David Lendahl, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex - Douglas in Douglas, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

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

Court will require an answer to the Petition.

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).

II. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR-2005-124257-

001-DT, of second-degree burglary and was sentenced to a 7-year term of imprisonment. In

Case 2:07-cv-02003-MHM Document 3 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

The Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation,

and exportation of intoxicating liquors and was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.

TERMPSREF - 2 -

his Petition, Petitioner names Warden Palosaari as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney

General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises six grounds for relief.

In Ground One, Petitioner contends that he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment

right to due process because he was arraigned for burglary of a particular residence—the

Glen Rosa property—but was convicted of burglarizing a completely different

residence—the Hummingbird property. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges he was denied his

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Eighteenth Amendment right to be free

from unlawful incarceration.1

 He claims his conviction and incarceration for burglarizing

the Hummingbird property are illegal because the Glen Rosa property was the property that

had been burglarized and, therefore, he was convicted of a crime that “never occurred.”

In Ground Three, Petitioner asserts a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due

process rights because (1) the trial court failed to ensure that Petitioner was “entering plea

to the right charge and crime”; (2) Petitioner was told by his attorney that he could not

withdraw from the plea agreement “even though he was being convicted of a crime that never

happened”; and (3) the “sentencing judge aggravated [the] sentence without any factors in

aggravation being charged, pled, or proven.” In Count Four, Petitioner contends he was

denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

In Ground Five, Petitioner claims he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to

due process because his sentence was aggravated “without his case being heard by a jury.”

He claims he was never informed of his right to a trial on the aggravating factors and,

therefore, his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing and voluntary. In Ground

Six, Petitioner alleges he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process

because the sentencing judge aggravated Petitioner’s sentence without the aggravating

factors being charged, pled, or proven.

Petitioner alleges his claims have been presented to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Case 2:07-cv-02003-MHM Document 3 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

III. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Petition,

is granted.

(2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. #1) and this Order

on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(3) Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service.

Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but may file an answer

limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, statute of limitations,

procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, only

those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be attached to the answer.

Case 2:07-cv-02003-MHM Document 3 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be treated as a waiver of the

defense. Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (2006). If not limited to affirmative

defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

(4) Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

answer.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 6th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-02003-MHM Document 3 Filed 11/07/07 Page 4 of 4