Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01452/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01452-2/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

John David Roettgen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Derral Adams, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-CV-1452-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. #1. Respondents filed an answer and Petitioner replied.

Dkt. ## 17, 20. On June 20, 2008, Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction. Dkt. #21. Petitioner filed objections to the R&R on November 17, 2008.

Dkt. #29. The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the petition.

I. Background.

Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault on June 14, 1989, and was

sentenced to nine years on each count, to be served concurrently. Dkt. #1 at 12. Petitioner’s

sentence expired in 1998 after he had served 6.5 years of imprisonment and 3 years of parole.

Dkt. #17-2 at 5-8; Dkt. #1 at 12. Petitioner is not now in the custody of the Arizona

Department of Corrections. Dkt. #17-2 at 5-8. Petitioner instead is serving a prison sentence

for an unrelated offense in California. Dkt. #1 at 4, 20. 

Case 3:06-cv-01452-DGC Document 30 Filed 12/10/08 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

- 2 -

Petitioner filed his first federal petition for habeas corpus in 1991, challenging the

Arizona aggravated assault convictions. Id. at 3. The Court dismissed the petition without

prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Roettgen v.

Copeland, 33 F.3d 36 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Petitioner next filed a “Supplemental Petition for Post-Conviction Relief” in the

Arizona trial court on November 4, 2004. Dkt. #1 at 33. The trial court denied this petition

on February 2, 2005. Dkt. #1 at 12-13. The Arizona Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s

request for counsel to assist with a petition for review, and the Arizona Supreme Court

denied the petition for review. Dkt. #1 at 14-15. 

 Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 5, 2006. Dkt. #1.

Petitioner claims that (1) he was denied his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of due

process and fundamental fairness when the state breached the plea agreement by sharing

information about his uncharged offenses with prosecutors in California, (2) he did not

knowingly and voluntarily enter into the plea agreement, (3) the state violated his Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment right to competent counsel, and (4) the state violated his rights not

to be placed in double jeopardy or faced with cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 17-27.

 On August 15, 2006, this Court dismissed the petition as a secondary or successive

petition requiring authorization from the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. #5. On May 1, 2007, the Ninth

Circuit ruled that this authorization was not necessary because the first petition was

dismissed without adjudication on the merits. Dkt. # 9. This Court reopened the case.

Dkt. # 10. Respondents filed an answer and Petitioner replied. Dkt. ## 17, 20.

II. The R&R and Objections. 

Magistrate Judge Voss recommended that the Court dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction. Dkt. #21. Judge Voss reasoned that Petitioner is no longer “in custody” as

required by § 2254(a) because Petitioner’s sentence for the Arizona aggravated assault

convictions he is challenging expired several years before he filed the petition. Id. at 3-4.

Judge Voss relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Maleng v. Cook, 490

U.S. 488 (1989).

Case 3:06-cv-01452-DGC Document 30 Filed 12/10/08 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

- 3 -

Petitioner argues that this case is different from Maleng because the information used

against Petitioner was part of a plea bargain, not a conviction as in Maleng, and because the

information used against Petitioner was not used to enhance his sentence, as it was in

Maleng. Dkt. # 29 at 2. Petitioner also asserts that he is in custody as required by § 2254(a)

because if Arizona had not provided information to California about the uncharged crimes,

he would not have been convicted in California and would not be in custody today. Id. The

remainder of Petitioner’s objections are reiterations of arguments on the merits in his

petition. 

III. Analysis.

The Court must undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which

specific objections are made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court may

accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Petitioner correctly notes that the facts in Maleng are not identical to the facts in his

case, but minor factual differences do not impact the authority of precedent. The ruling in

Maleng was based on the fact that the petitioner’s sentence had expired before he filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. The ruling did not depend on

whether the information used in the petitioner’s subsequent prosecution was part of a

conviction or a plea bargain, or whether the purpose of the information was to enhance a

sentence or impeach a witness. The critical fact in Maleng – that the petitioner’s sentence

expired prior to filing the petition – is the same in this case.

Petitioner claims that he is in custody because information that should have been

protected by the Arizona plea agreement was shared with prosecutors in California, resulting

in his conviction. Dkt. #29 at 2. Section 2254(a) provides that “a district court shall

entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant

to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court in Maleng read this language as “requiring that the habeas petitioner be

Case 3:06-cv-01452-DGC Document 30 Filed 12/10/08 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

- 4 -

‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.”

Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492. Petitioner is in custody for the California conviction, not for the

Arizona conviction under attack in his petition. Petitioner therefore is not “in custody”

within the meaning of § 2254(a), and this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s R&R (Dkt. #21) is accepted.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-01452-DGC Document 30 Filed 12/10/08 Page 4 of 4