Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01434/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01434-0/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 

JDDL 

WO MD 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Billy Ray Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV 13-1434-PHX-GMS (JFM) 

ORDER 

On July 16, 2013, Petitioner Billy Ray Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona 

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). In an Order dated September 3, 

2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a complete 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed an 

Application to Proceed (Doc. 5). The Court will dismiss the Petition and this action. 

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 

 Petitioner challenges his loss of 60 days of early release credits (“ERC”) for a 

disciplinary violation. Petitioner names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona 

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. 

Case 2:13-cv-01434-GMS--JFM Document 6 Filed 11/08/13 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

JDDL 

 Petitioner raises one ground for relief. Petitioner states that on June 18, 2013, he 

was found guilty in a disciplinary hearing for possession of contraband and lost 60 days’ 

ERC. Petitioner alleges that the sanction was in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of 

the United States Constitution and cites to Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (1997). 

Petitioner seeks to be released from prison. Petitioner affirmatively alleges that he has 

not presented this claim to the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court. 

III. Failure to Exhaust State Remedies 

To challenge disciplinary proceedings, a prisoner may seek federal habeas relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which is the “exclusive vehicle” for a state prisoner to seek 

relief from an administrative decision in federal court. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 

1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004). Before a federal court may grant habeas relief, however, 

a prisoner must first have exhausted remedies available in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). The federal court will 

not entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless each and every issue has been 

exhausted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982); Olvera v. Guirbino, 371 F.3d 

569, 572 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court may not consider a claim until petitioner has 

properly exhausted all available remedies). When seeking habeas relief, the burden is on 

the habeas petitioner to show that he has properly exhausted each claim. Cartwright v. 

Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). 

 To exhaust claims, a prisoner must give the state courts a “fair opportunity” to act 

on his claims. Castillo v. McFadden, 370 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2004). He must describe 

both the operative facts and the federal legal theory so that the state courts have a “fair 

opportunity” to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his 

constitutional claim.” Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003). A prisoner 

seeking to exhaust claims in state court before filing a federal habeas action should 

diligently pursue his available state remedies to avoid application of the one-year 

limitation period. See Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying 

§ 2244(d) to a habeas petition challenging a disciplinary order). 

Case 2:13-cv-01434-GMS--JFM Document 6 Filed 11/08/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

JDDL 

 Petitioner affirmatively alleges that he has not exhausted state court remedies. To 

the extent that Petitioner may be challenging disciplinary proceedings that resulted in a 

loss of ERC, Arizona’s Administrative Review Act does not specifically authorize state 

judicial review of prison disciplinary proceedings, but an inmate may seek such review 

by bringing a special action in superior court. Rose v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., 804 P.2d 

845, 847-50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). If unsuccessful, the inmate must then appeal the 

superior court’s ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals to exhaust his claims before 

seeking federal habeas relief. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 

1999). 

 Because Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies, the Court will 

dismiss the Petition and this action.

 IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Petitioners Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5) is granted. 

 (2) The Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

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

 (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 8th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01434-GMS--JFM Document 6 Filed 11/08/13 Page 3 of 3