Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00959/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00959-1/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

1

His original petition, filed May 4, 2009, was dismissed with leave to amend. See

Doc. #5. On September 21, 2009, he filed an Amended Petition; on October 2, 2009, he filed

a Second Amended Petition. See Doc. ##6, 7. On March 5, 2010, Johnson filed a Third

Amended Petition. See Doc. #14. The Court will strike this pleading for failure to seek leave

of court. See LRCiv 15.1.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-0959-PHX-GMS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

On October 2, 2009, George Johnson filed a Second Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus,1

 challenging his conviction for third degree burglary and the imposition of

an eight-year prison term. He raises four grounds for habeas relief: (1) prosecutorial

misconduct; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the improper use of a prior conviction

as a sentence enhancement; and (4) malicious arrest. On January 21, 2010, Respondents

filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of the petition without prejudice, citing a postconviction proceeding pending in state court. The Court recommends that the motion be

granted, and that Johnson’s petition be dismissed without prejudice.

A review of the Maricopa County Superior Court docket in #CR2005-008016

indicates that Johnson filed a Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on September 23, 2008. On

Case 2:09-cv-00959-GMS Document 15 Filed 04/16/10 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

- 2 -

October 21, 2008, the trial court appointed counsel, and set deadlines for the filing of a

petition, response and reply. On February 6, 2009, the trial court granted Johnson a thirtyday extension to file his petition. On April 17, 2009, the trial court acknowledged receipt of

counsel’s Notice of Completion of Post-Conviction Review. The court also ordered PostConviction Counsel to remain as advisory counsel until a final determination has been made

by the trial court concerning any post-conviction relief proceeding. In addition, the trial

court ordered that Johnson be given 45 days from the date of the Order to file a pro se

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, and scheduled deadlines for filing the response and reply.

On December 14, 2009, the trial court issued a minute entry stating as follows:

The Court has reviewed defendant’s Pro Per Petition for PostConviction Relief. The petition fails to conform to Rule 32.5 Arizona Rules

of Civil Procedure, as it does not contain sufficient facts for the Court to

evaluate defendant’s claims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED striking the defendant’s Pro Per

Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. It is further ordered granting defendant an

extension of time to and including January 11, 2010 in which to file an

amended petition. Failure to file an amended petition by January 11, 2010,

will result in dismissal of this Rule 32 proceeding. The State’s response shall

be filed within 45 days after the amended petition is filed. Defendant may file

a reply within 15 days after the response is filed. 

Although Johnson did not file an amended petition within the prescribed time period, and has

filed nothing further in superior court, the Rule 32 proceeding remains open, pending a final

decision by the trial court.

A Federal District Court is not authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus sought by

someone in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court “unless it appears that the

applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the court of the State.” See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1)(A). If an appeal or collateral-review proceeding is pending in state court, a

petitioner has not exhausted his remedies until the completion of those proceedings. See

Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). Because Johnson’s post-conviction

proceedings are still pending in Maricopa County Superior Court, his habeas petition is

premature and should be dismissed. The Court recommends a dismissal without prejudice,

Case 2:09-cv-00959-GMS Document 15 Filed 04/16/10 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

- 3 -

to allow Johnson to refile his federal petition upon completion of post-conviction

proceedings in state court.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be

granted (Doc. #13).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that George Johnson’s Second Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied without prejudice (Doc. #7).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling

debatable.

IT IS ORDERED striking Johnson’s Third Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. #14).

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 fourteen 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);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to 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 or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 15th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00959-GMS Document 15 Filed 04/16/10 Page 3 of 3