Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01042/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01042-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan McAllister, Sr., )

)

Petitioner, ) CIV 13-01042 PHX JAT MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

)

Charles L. Ryan, Arizona )

Attorney General, )

)

Respondents. )

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG:

On May 21, 2013, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed

a petition (including three hundred pages of attachments)

seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner

challenges his 2008 conviction by a Maricopa County Superior

Court after a jury trial. Petitioner was, at the time he filed

his habeas petition, incarcerated in Kingman, Arizona, serving

a 6.5 year sentence imposed December 5, 2008. 

In Ground One, Petitioner alleges violations

of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendments and the Due Process Clause and

asserts that there was prosecutorial and

judicial misconduct in his criminal trial. In

Ground Two, Petitioner asserts that there was

a lack of jurisdiction because of an invalid

indictment, that the grand jury selection

process violated his Fifth Amendment rights,

that the grand jury was biased, and that

there were “inconsistencies of the date the

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 8
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-

indictment was issued and/or received.” 

 In Ground Three, he contends that he

received ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. In Ground Four, Petitioner claims

that the trial court violated his rights to

due process and a fair trial by failing to

order sua sponte a psychiatric examination

after the court learned of Petitioner’s long

history of serious mental illness. In Ground

Five, he asserts that a constructive

amendment of the indictment without

reconvening the grand jury violated the Fifth

Amendment Grand Jury Clause. He also asserts

that his appointed counsel failed to turn

over Petitioner’s case file after the court

permitted him to proceed in propria persona

and that the prosecutor served documents on

Petitioner’s advisory counsel, not

Petitioner. In Ground Six, Petitioner

contends that he received ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel and that his

appellate counsel violated the procedural

rules of conduct.

Doc. 5.

In an order issued May 29, 2013, the Court ordered

Respondents to answer the petition. See id. On July 3, 2013,

the Magistrate Judge granted Respondents’ motion seeking

additional time to answer the petition, Respondents having

averred that Petitioner was still exhausting his federal habeas

claims in the Arizona state courts.

On April 14, 2014, Respondents further averred:

 Respondents respectfully request a second

extension of time to file an answer or other

dispositive pleading to Petitioner’s Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus until 40 days after

either: 1) the time expires for Petitioner to

petition the Arizona Supreme Court to review

the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision

affirming the trial court’s denial of

post-conviction relief, or 2) if McAllister

files a petition for review, the Arizona

Supreme Court issues a decision. On November

30, 2012, McAllister filed a petition for

review in the Arizona Court of Appeals

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 2 of 8
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-

challenging the state trial court’s dismissal

of his petition for post-conviction relief.

(ECF Doc. # 14, at Attachment 1.) McAllister

filed the instant habeas corpus petition in

this Court on May 21, 2013, while his

state-court petition for review was still

pending. (ECF Doc. # 1.) ... 

The Arizona Court of Appeals issued a

decision affirming the trial court’s denial

of post-conviction relief on April 9, 2014.

(Attachment 1.) McAllister has 30 days from

that date—until Friday, May 9—to petition the

Arizona Supreme Court to review the decision

of the Arizona Court of Appeals. See Ariz. R.

Crim. P. 32.9(c) (30–day time limit to file

petition for review).

Doc. 18.

In an order issued April 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge

extended the time allowed Respondents to answer the petition

until forty days after the time expired for Petitioner to seek

review by the Arizona Supreme Court in his Rule 32 action. See

Doc. 19. 

On May 6, 2014, Respondents docketed a notice (Doc. 21)

that they were unable to serve pleadings on Petitioner because

mail sent to Petitioner at the Kingman prison was returned as

undeliverable because Petitioner had been released from custody.

A second such notice (Doc. 21) was docketed May 22, 2014. On

May 22, 2014, the Clerk of the Court docketed notice that mail

sent to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable and not

forwardable.

The Court’s service order states, under the heading

“Warnings,” that:

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a

change of address in accordance with Rule

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 3 of 8
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 -4-

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. Petitioner must not include a

motion for other relief with a notice of

change of address. Failure to comply may

result in dismissal of this action. 

*** 

C. Possible Dismissal 

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with

every provision of this Order, including

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this

action without further notice. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (a district court may dismiss an action

for failure to comply with any order of the

Court).

Doc. 5. 

Respondents have provided evidence that Petitioner was

released from Arizona Department of Corrections’ custody on

April 11, 2014. See Doc. 20, Exh. B. Rule 83.3(d) of the Local

Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona, provides:

Notice of Name and Address Changes. An

attorney or unrepresented party must file a

notice of a name or address change, and an

attorney must also file a notice of a change

of firm name or e-mail address. The notice

must be filed no later than fourteen (14)

days before the effective date of the change,

except that an unrepresented party who is

incarcerated must submit a notice within

seven (7) days after the effective date of

the change. A separate notice must be filed

in each active case.

Petitioner has not complied with the Court’s order at

Doc. 5, requiring that he comply with the local rule regarding

a change of address.

Petitioner has a general duty to prosecute this case.

See Fidelity Phila. Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587

F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (so holding in a prisoner section

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 4 of 8
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 -5-

1983 action). The Court does not have an affirmative obligation

to locate Petitioner. “A party, not the district court, bears

the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his

mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.

1988). Petitioner’s failure to keep the Court informed of his

new address may be construed as a failure to prosecute his

habeas claims.

The authority of a court to dismiss sua

sponte for lack of prosecution has generally

been considered an “inherent power,” governed

not by rule or statute but by the control

necessarily vested in courts to manage their

own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and

expeditious disposition of cases.

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). 

Accordingly, when circumstances make such

action appropriate, a District Court may

dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute

even without affording notice of its

intention to do so or providing an adversary

hearing before acting. Whether such an order

can stand on appeal depends not on power but

on whether it was within the permissible

range of the court’s discretion.” 

Id. at 633.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the

Court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to

comply with the Court’s local rules, or failure to comply with

the Court’s orders. See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.

32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to

dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 5 of 8
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 -6-

action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”);

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642–43 (9th Cir. 2002)

(affirming district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute

when habeas petitioner failed to file a first amended petition).

The Court must weigh five factors in determining

whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, failure to

comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district

court’s local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260.

Specifically, the court must consider:

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less

drastic alternatives.

Id. at 1260–61. Accord Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642–43; Ghazali

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals has stated that “[t]hese factors are not a

series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything,

but a way for a district judge to think about what to do.” In re

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217,

1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

In the sixty days since Petitioner was released from

ADOC custody he has not notified the Court of his change of

address and pleadings and orders may not be served on

Petitioner. Without Plaintiff’s current address, certain

alternatives to dismissal are bound to be futile. Here, as in

Carey, “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted

or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 6 of 8
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 -7-

round trip tour through the United States mail.” 856 F.2d at

1441.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response

to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 7 of 8
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 -8-

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 18th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01042-JAT Document 23 Filed 06/18/14 Page 8 of 8