Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00659/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00659-0/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

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nathaniel Hearn, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Director Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-659-PHX-DGC (MEA) 

ORDER

On March 28, 2012, Petitioner Nathaniel Hearn, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 2).

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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

account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

II. Petition

A. Background

On March 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a § 2254 petition in Hearn v. Ryan, 08-CV-448-

PHX-DGC, challenging his convictions in Maricopa County Superior Court case #CR2004-

6251. In an August 15, 2011 Order (Doc. 49 in 08-CV-448), the Court granted the § 2254

Case 2:12-cv-00659-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 04/10/12 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

 1Petitioner was sentenced to an 8-year term of imprisonment with 2,889 days of

presentence credit.

- 2 -

petition and directed Respondents to “release Petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date

of th[e] Order, unless the State of Arizona commences proceedings to retry him.”

Respondents appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 51 in 08-CV-448). On

January 5, 2012, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal in the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 18

in 11-17164). Respondents sought to have the appeal dismissed as moot and the August 15th

Order vacated because on December 21, 2011, Petitioner pled guilty to robbery in CR2004-

6251 and was sentenced to an 8-year term of imprisonment. In a February 14, 2012 Order

(Doc. 19 in 11-17164), the Ninth Circuit granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the appeal,

vacated the August 15th Judgment, and remanded that case to this Court for dismissal of the

§ 2254 petition. The Mandate was issued on March 7, 2012.

B. Current Petition

In his Petition, Petitioner names Director Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. He raises one ground for relief, asserting

that his due process rights have been violated because he is “being held in prison for a

sentence which not only has expired but was vacated.”1

 Petitioner states that he has not

presented this issue to the Arizona appellate courts.

III. Discussion

Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust

remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526

U.S. 838, 842 (1999). “In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an

opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas

petition.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. The failure to exhaust subjects the Petition to

dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983).

Before Petitioner may seek habeas corpus relief in this Court he must first present his

claims to the state courts and exhaust his state court remedies. The fact that a calculation of

Case 2:12-cv-00659-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 04/10/12 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

 2A state-court petition for post-conviction relief can be used if “[t]he person is being held

in custody after the sentence imposed has expired.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(d). 

- 3 -

his release date is involved does not shield him from the exhaustion requirement.2 Petitioner

states that he has not presented his grounds for relief to the Arizona Court of Appeals or

Arizona Supreme Court. Thus, this habeas action is premature. The Court will dismiss the

case without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.

(2) Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and this case are dismissed

without prejudice.

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

(4) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 10th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00659-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 04/10/12 Page 3 of 3