Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08108/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08108-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward Faye Parks, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-8108-PCT-GMS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

 Edward Faye Parks filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on May 2, 2013, 

and an Amended Petition on September 12, 2013, challenging his convictions in Mohave 

County Superior Court for two counts of aggravated assault and one count of disorderly 

conduct with a weapon. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences, the 

longest of which is 15.75 years. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal 

in a memorandum decision dated April 23, 2013. See Doc. 9 at 4-11. On May 20, 2014, 

Respondents notified the Court that Parks filed a notice of post-conviction relief in state 

court on May 3, 2013, and appointed counsel subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief on April 7, 2014. See Doc. 18. Respondents request an extension of 

time-40 days after Parks alerts the Court of the final disposition of his case in state courtto file an answer to his Amended Petition. For the reasons stated below, the Court 

recommends that the Amended Petition be dismissed without prejudice, to allow Parks to 

refile his federal petition upon completion of state court post-conviction proceedings. 

Case 3:13-cv-08108-DLR Document 20 Filed 06/26/14 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 

Respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer will be denied. 

 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 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 

Parks’ initial post-conviction proceedings are still pending in Mohave County Superior 

Court, his habeas petition is premature and should be dismissed. The Court recommends 

a dismissal without prejudice, so as not to preclude Parks from refiling his federal 

petition upon exhaustion of post-conviction proceedings in state court.

IT IS ORDERED denying Respondents’ Second Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Answer (Doc. 18). 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Edward Faye Parks’ Amended Petition be 

dismissed without prejudice (Doc. 8). 

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 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 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 

Case 3:13-cv-08108-DLR Document 20 Filed 06/26/14 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 

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 26th day of June, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08108-DLR Document 20 Filed 06/26/14 Page 3 of 3