Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01468/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01468-0/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

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lon Roger Coleman,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1468-PHX-DGC (JRI)

ORDER

Petitioner Lon Roger Coleman, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-Kingman,

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

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a September 7, 2012 Order, the Court

dismissed the Petition as premature because Petitioner had a petition for post-conviction

relief pending before the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court entered

Judgment on September 7, 2011.

On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 7) and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary

Restraining Order (Doc. 8). On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Expedite Ruling

on Request for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 10).

I. Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for Reconsideration

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff asks that the Court reopen this action

Case 2:11-cv-01468-DGC--JRI Document 11 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

because he has not received notice of any action on his state court petition and believes his

state court proceedings have concluded. This is not a proper basis for reconsideration of the

September 2011 dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas action because Petitioner’s state court

proceedings were still in progress when the habeas action was dismissed. If Petitioner wishes

to raise his habeas claims, he must do so in a new petition, filed in a new case. The Court

will deny Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will deny as moot the request

for counsel.

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order

In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring prison

officials to treat Plaintiff’s mental health issues. The Court will deny the Motion because

Plaintiff’s claims are not properly before the Court. First, this case is closed. Second,

Plaintiff cannot raise claims challenging his conditions of confinement in a habeas action.

If Plaintiff seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he must bring his claims in

a new action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s April 25, 2012 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 7) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s April 25, 2012 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary

Restraining Order (Doc. 8) is denied.

(3) Plaintiff’s April 30, 2012 Motion to Expedite Ruling (Doc. 10) is denied as

moot.

(4) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 4th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01468-DGC--JRI Document 11 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 2