Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01597/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01597-0/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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Demont Oshaun Hill, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1597-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Demont Oshaun Hill, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexLewis, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. #1). The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. The Court will require an answer to the

Petition.

I. Petition

Named as Respondent in the Petition is Charles Ryan. The Attorney General of the

State of Arizona is named in the Petition as an Additional Respondent.

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction on November 15,

1995, for Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery (non-dangerous) and Attempted Armed

Robbery, entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court in matter #CR 94-04343. Petitioner

alleges he was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment for Conspiracy to Commit

Armed Robbery, and a fifteen-year term of imprisonment for Attempted Armed Robbery.

Petitioner presents five grounds for habeas corpus relief in the Petition:

Case 2:09-cv-01597-MHM Document 6 Filed 11/09/09 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

(1) “Did [the] trial court violate Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.

Constitution by wrongfully sentencing me under an incorrect application of the sentencing

guidelines?”;

(2) “Does the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the imposition of a

sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime?”;

(3) “Did [the] trial court erroneously order sentences to be served consecutively,

violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] of the U.S. Constitution?”; 

(4) “Did [the] trial court commit fundamental error by giving a Pinkerton

instruction denying due process of law in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

of the U.S. Constitution?”; and

(5) “Does the [Fifth] Amendment guard against being twice punished for a greater

crime (Attempted Armed Robbery) being served consecutive to its lesser underlying crime

(Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery)?”

Petitioner affirmatively alleges that he has presented the issues in Grounds Three,

Four, and Five to the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court. Petitioner

alleges that he has not presented the issues in Grounds One and Two to the Arizona Court

of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court. 

Although it appears that Petitioner has not properly exhausted Grounds One and Two

in the state courts as required, it also appears that Petitioner may now be procedurally barred

from seeking review in the state courts, and therefore, no additional state remedies remain

open to him. In light of the possibility of procedural bar, a summary dismissal would be

inappropriate. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989) (remanding where

petitioner failed to exhaust claims and it was not clear whether claims were procedurally

barred). An answer is therefore required. 

II. 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

Case 2:09-cv-01597-MHM Document 6 Filed 11/09/09 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 -

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) 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. 

(2) 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.

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.

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

answer.

Case 2:09-cv-01597-MHM Document 6 Filed 11/09/09 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 -

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey 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 5th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01597-MHM Document 6 Filed 11/09/09 Page 4 of 4