Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02095/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02095-0/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Christopher Musselman, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2095-PHX-NVW (JCG)

ORDER

Petitioner John Christopher Musselman, presently confined in the Santa Rita Unit of

the Arizona Prison Complex in Tucson, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court

will order an answer.

A. Procedural Background

On February 26, 1999, in Maricopa County Superior Court, No. 98-093174, Petitioner

was convicted by a jury of sexual conduct with a minor and dangerous crimes against

children. Petitioner was sentenced to 26 years’ imprisonment and his convictions and

sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner’s state post-conviction petition was

denied by the Maricopa County Superior Court and review was denied by the appellate court.

In his habeas petition, Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel because (1) counsel failed to advise him about a plea bargain offer, (2) an extremely

limited amount of time was spent investigating his case, (3) counsel admitted to Petitioner’s

Case 2:05-cv-02095-NVW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 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 -

guilt during opening arguments, (4) Petitioner was denied allocution, (5) Petitioner was

unaware of what was occurring at the sentencing hearing because he collapsed from a

diabetic emergency, (6) counsel was not present at the reading of the verdict, (7) Petitioner

was denied a continuance of his trial, (8) Petitioner was denied a fair trial because he was not

allowed to “challenge the duties of offers,” and (9) Petitioner was denied a “case of defense

catch all - denied fair trial.”

It is unclear whether Petitioner properly exhausted his claims. However, even

assuming that the exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted

claim may be procedurally barred. 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). Accordingly, an answer is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

B. Rule 41 Cautionary Notice.

Petitioner should take notice that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of

this Order, or any order of the Court entered in this action, the action will be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any

order of the Court).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) A copy of the Petition and this Order be served by the Clerk of Court upon the

Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail pursuant to

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(2) Respondent shall answer the Petition within forty (40) days of the date of service.

Respondent shall 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 constitute a waiver of the

Case 2:05-cv-02095-NVW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 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 -

defense. See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Morrison

v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). If not limited to affirmative defenses, the

answer shall fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases.

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

answer.

(4) Petitioner shall serve upon Respondent, or if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for

consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original document and copy, to

be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of

the pleading or document was mailed to Respondent or the counsel. Any paper received by

a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the

Court may be disregarded by the Court.

(5) At all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner shall immediately advise

the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned

“NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice shall contain only information

pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. The notice shall not include any

motions for any other relief. Failure to file a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may

result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

(6) Aside from the two copies of the petition or amended petition that must be

submitted, a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany

each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. Failure to comply with this requirement

may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 2:05-cv-02095-NVW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 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 -

(7) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin pursuant to Local

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

recommendation.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02095-NVW Document 3 Filed 10/18/05 Page 4 of 4