Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03720/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03720-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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 JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jerome Jones, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ivan Bartos, et al. 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3720-PHX-JAT (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner, who is confined in the Barchey Unit of the Arizona State Prison Complex

in Buckeye, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The Court will order an answer.

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust

balance is less than $25.00. See LRCiv 3.5(b) (excess of $25.00 requires payment of the

filing fee). Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #1) will be

granted. 

B. Procedural Background

On February 26, 2003, after Petitioner pled guilty, he was sentenced to a term of ten

years for armed robbery. He did not file a direct appeal. Petitioner filed a petition for postCase 2:05-cv-03720-JAT Document 3 Filed 12/07/05 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 -

conviction relief. By order filed November 10, 2004, the Maricopa County Superior Court

denied his request. Petitioner’s appeal therefrom was later denied by the Arizona Court of

Appeals. He did not seek review in the Arizona Supreme Court. 

In his habeas petition, Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: (1) counsel was

ineffective by failing to adequately inform Petitioner of the consequences of accepting a plea

agreement, and by failing to communicate to Petitioner in writing the terms of the plea offer;

and (2) the ten-year aggravated sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004).

Petitioner alleges that he exhausted the claims. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d

1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (when challenge is not to a life sentence or capital sentence,

exhaustion requires only fair presentation to the Arizona Court of Appeals). 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). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #1) is granted.

(2) 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. 

(3) 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. 

Case 2:05-cv-03720-JAT Document 3 Filed 12/07/05 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 -

Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may constitute a waiver of the 

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.

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

answer.

(5) 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.

(6) 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).

(7) 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-03720-JAT Document 3 Filed 12/07/05 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 -

(8) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan pursuant to Rule

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 December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-03720-JAT Document 3 Filed 12/07/05 Page 4 of 4