Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00076/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00076-2/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 TERMPSREF

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Van Bernard Branch, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-76-PHX-SMM (MEA)

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s First Amended Petition (Doc. #7) (Amended

Petition). The Court will order that an Answer to the Amended Petition be provided by

Respondent.

I. Procedural Background

On January 14, 2008, Petitioner Van Bernard Branch, who is confined under Arizona

Department of Corrections’ authority in the Great Plains Correctional Facility in Hinton,

Oklahoma, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. #1). Petitioner did not immediately pay the $5.00 filing fee but filed a deficient

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

By Order filed February 4, 2008 (Doc. #3), the deficient Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis was denied without prejudice, and Petitioner was given 30 days from the

filing date of the Order to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a new, completed Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

On February 29, 2008, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee (Doc. #4) and filed an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5). By Order filed May 9, 2008 (Doc. #6),

Case 2:08-cv-00076-SMM Document 8 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

the Court denied the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot and dismissed the

Petition without prejudice, with leave to amend. Petitioner was given 30 days from the filing

date of the Order to file an amended petition. On June 20, 2008, Petitioner filed his

Amended Petition (Doc. #7).

II. Amended Petition

Named as Respondent in the Amended Petition is E.W. Morris, Warden. The

Attorney General of the State of Arizona is named as an Additional Respondent. 

In his Amended Petition, Petitioner challenges his January 8, 2002 judgment of

conviction for Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices, entered in the Maricopa County Superior

Court in matter CR-2001-005026. 

The sole ground Petitioner presents in the Amended is “[d]id the trial court error when

it declined to hear Mr. Branch’s Rule 32 post conviction relief petition even though it was

not final until after Apprendi was decided (Blakely claim)”?

Petitioner alleges that the issue in Ground One was presented to the Arizona Supreme

Court. A review of the Amended Petition indicates that an answer is required. 

III. 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

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.

Case 2:08-cv-00076-SMM Document 8 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

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 Amended Petition (Doc. #7) 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 Amended 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.

(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 19th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00076-SMM Document 8 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 3