Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_98-cv-00025/USCOURTS-azd-4_98-cv-00025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Harley Greenway, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-25-TUC-RCC

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER LIFTING STAY

The Court stayed this matter in August 2004, pending completion of a successive

post-conviction relief (“PCR”) proceeding in state court. (Dkt. 117.) On July 28, 2005, the

PCR court denied relief on all claims. (Dkt. 124 at 1.) Petitioner has notified the Court that

the Arizona Supreme Court has denied Petitioner’s Petition for Review. (Dkt. 130 at 1.)

Petitioner’s counsel has informed the Court that she intends to file a motion to amend

Petitioner’s habeas petition to include the claims raised in the successive PCR petition. Due

to a medical emergency, counsel has requested sixty days in which to file the motion and

accompanying amendment. The Court will allow the requested sixty days and finds that

some guidance regarding the impending motion is warranted. 

The Court’s initial review of the PCR court’s ruling on the successive petition

indicates that amendment as to most or all of the claims may be futile because the claims are

likely procedurally barred because they were found precluded in state court or are meritless

on their face. The Local Rules provide that a party moving to amend must file a copy of the

proposed amendment indicating all changes as well as a clean copy of the proposed amended

Case 4:98-cv-00025-RCC Document 132 Filed 06/19/06 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

pleading. LRCiv 15.1. In light of the Court’s preliminary assessment that the proposed

claims are of uncertain viability, the time and expense of drafting the full proposed amended

pleading is not warranted. Therefore, the motion need not comply with the requirements of

Local Rule 15.1; rather, Petitioner shall include the proposed claims within the body of the

motion to amend. Additionally, the motion should address the issues raised by the Court,

procedural default (including any potential cause and prejudice, and fundamental miscarriage

of justice arguments) and the merit of his proposed claims.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Stay is LIFTED, and Petitioner shall discontinue filing

status reports.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner files a motion to amend, it shall

comply with the Court’s direction in this Order and be filed on or before August 7, 2006.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

Case 4:98-cv-00025-RCC Document 132 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2