Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08186/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08186-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Fox, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-8186-PCT-GMS (ECV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

BACKGROUND

Pending before the court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner Ronald Fox. Doc. 1. Pursuant to a plea agreement in

Mohave County Superior Court, Petitioner pled guilty on July 14, 2009, to Conspiracy to

Commit Aggravated Assault, a class three nondangerous felony under Arizona law. Doc. 21,

Exh. A, B. On August 20, 2009, Petitioner was sentenced to an aggravated term of six years

in prison. Doc. 21, Exh. C. 

On October 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to

Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Doc. 21, Exh. D. Through counsel,

he filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on March 15, 2010. Doc. 21, Exh. E.

Petitioner argued in his petition that the trial court improperly found Petitioner’s offense to

be “cruel, heinous and depraved.” Id. Without that finding, Petitioner argued, the court was

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 7
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 -

not authorized to impose an aggravated sentence. Id. After briefing was completed, the trial

court summarily denied the petition for post-conviction relief on August 19, 2010. Doc. 21,

Exh. F. The court rejected Petitioner’s argument and concluded that it properly applied the

“cruel, heinous and depraved” aggravating factor and was, therefore, within its authority to

impose an aggravated sentence. Id. Petitioner did not seek review in the Arizona Court of

Appeals or in the Arizona Supreme Court. Doc. 1 at 2. 

Petitioner filed his habeas petition in this court on September 27, 2010. Petitioner

alleges two grounds for relief. In ground one, he alleges that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the prosecutor’s arguments during

the sentencing hearing mischaracterized statements Petitioner had made. Petitioner does not

explain what statements he made nor does he explain how the prosecutor mischaracterized

those statements. In ground two, Petitioner alleges that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when his counsel failed to object to the

prosecutor’s improper arguments at the sentencing hearing. On April 25, 2011, Respondents

filed a Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. 21. Petitioner filed a

Reply on May 27, 2011. Doc. 22.

Additionally, on April 18, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay or Hold in Abeyance

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. 19. Respondents filed a Response on April 25,

2011. Doc. 20. 

DISCUSSION

Respondents contend in their limited answer to the petition that Petitioner’s claims are

procedurally defaulted because they were never presented in the state court. Because the

court agrees that Petitioner’s claims were not raised in the state court, and that he would be

unable to go back and raise them now, the court will recommend that they be denied as

procedural defaulted. Additionally, the court will recommend that the motion to stay be

denied. 

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 7
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 -

A. Procedural Default 

1. Legal Standards

A state prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court before petitioning for a writ

of habeas corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) & (c); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.

364, 365-66 (1995); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 1991). To properly

exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the state's highest court

in a procedurally appropriate manner. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999). A

petitioner "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues

by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." Id. at

845. In Arizona, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the Arizona Court of Appeals

by properly pursuing them through the state’s direct appeal process or through appropriate

post-conviction relief. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); Roettgen

v. Copeland, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994). 

A claim has been fairly presented if the petitioner has described both the operative

facts and the federal legal theory on which the claim is based. Bland v. Cal. Dep't of

Corrections, 20 F.3d 1469, 1472-73 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Schell v.

Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.3d 895,

898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). "Our rule is that a state prisoner has not 'fairly presented' (and thus

exhausted) his federal claims in state court unless he specifically indicated to that court that

those claims were based on federal law." Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir.

2000), amended on other grounds, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001). "If a petitioner fails to alert

the state court to the fact that he is raising a federal constitutional claim, his federal claim is

unexhausted regardless of its similarity to the issues raised in state court." Johnson v. Zenon,

88 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). “Moreover, general appeals to broad constitutional

principles, such as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial, are insufficient

to establish exhaustion.” Hivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Gray

v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996)).

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/10/11 Page 3 of 7
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 time has passed to seek post-conviction relief in state court under Rule 32.4(a)

of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Petitioner has not shown that any of the

- 4 -

If a petition contains claims that were never fairly presented in state court, the federal

court must determine whether state remedies remain available to the petitioner. See Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 268-270 (1989)

(O'Connor, J., concurring). If remedies are still available in state court, the federal court may

dismiss the petition without prejudice pending the exhaustion of state remedies. Id.

However, if the court finds that the petitioner would have no state remedy were he to return

to the state court, then his claims are considered procedurally defaulted. Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288, 298-99 (1989); see also Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir. 2002) (a

defendant's claim is procedurally defaulted when it is clear that the state court would hold

the claim procedurally barred). The federal court will not consider these claims unless the

petitioner can demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice would result, or establish cause for

his noncompliance and actual prejudice. See Dretke v. Haley, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 1851-52

(2004); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321 (1995); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

750-51 (1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96 (1986).

2. Application

Petitioner failed to present either of his two grounds for relief in the state court.

Petitioner raised one claim in his state petition for post-conviction relief but it was unrelated

to the claims alleged in his habeas petition. Moreover, after the trial court denied his state

petition for post-conviction relief, Petitioner failed to seek review in the Arizona Court of

Appeals. Thus, even if he had raised his habeas claims in his state petition for postconviction relief, they still would not have been exhausted in light of his failure to seek

appellate review. 

 Having failed to fairly present the claims alleged in grounds one and two in the state

court, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. Moreover, Petitioner would

no longer have a remedy if he returned to the state court.1

 As a result, the claims are

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/10/11 Page 4 of 7
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 exceptions to the time limits under Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) apply to him.

- 5 -

procedurally defaulted. Although Petitioner addresses the exhaustion issue in his reply, he

fails to establish cause for the default and actual prejudice. Nor doe Petitioner show a

miscarriage of justice to overcome the procedural default. The court will therefore

recommend that the claims be denied.

B. Motion to Stay or Hold in Abeyance

Petitioner argues in his motion that this case should be stayed or otherwise held in

abeyance while he attempts to exhaust his claims in the Arizona Court of Appeals. He

contends that a stay should be granted because he relied on the assistance of a jailhouse

lawyer who was unaware of the need to exhaust his state court remedies before filing a

federal habeas petition. 

The court finds no basis to stay this matter for the purpose of allowing Petitioner to

attempt to exhaust his state court remedies. A “stay and abeyance” is only available in

limited circumstances. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Because staying the

case effectively excuses a petitioner’s failure to properly raise his claims in state court, a stay

and abeyance is only appropriate if the court determines there was good cause for failing to

present the claims in state court. Id. Additionally, granting a stay is not appropriate where

the claims are plainly without merit. Id. Here, Petitioner’s reliance on an unskilled jailhouse

lawyer does not demonstrate good cause for failing to exhaust his claims. Moreover,

Petitioner’s vague claims about the prosecutor’s mischaracterizaion of statements he made

are, on their face, without merit. 

Moreover, the stay and abeyance procedure at issue in Rhines applies when a

petitioner has filed a mixed petition, meaning some claims have been exhausted and some

have not. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 271-272. Here, none of the claims have been exhausted,

rendering the procedure set forth in Rhines inapplicable. The court has not been presented

with and is not aware of any legal authority that applies the stay and abeyance procedure to

a petition containing only unexhausted claims.

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/10/11 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 -

Finally, granting a stay under these circumstances would be futile. As set forth above,

the time for Petitioner to file a new state petition for post-conviction relief has long since

passed. Additionally, because the claims could have been raised in his first petition for postconviction relief, they are precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal

Procedure. Petitioner’s claims are, therefore, “technically exhausted” because no state court

remedies remain available. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 732 (1991).

For all of these reasons, a stay is unwarranted here. The court will recommend that

the motion be denied. 

C. Conclusion

Having determined that Petitioner’s two grounds for relief are procedurally defaulted,

and that there is no basis to stay the case, the court will recommend that the petition be

dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That the Motion to Stay or Hold in Abeyance (Doc. 19) be DENIED; and

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) be

DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: 

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and

jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/10/11 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

DATED this 10th day of August, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08186-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/10/11 Page 7 of 7