Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01339/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01339-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Isiah Hill, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

William White, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1339-PHX-PGR (LOA)

ORDER

On June 25, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1) Petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction entered in the

Maricopa County Superior Court, matter # CR 2006-009614-001DT, on December 13, 2007

for two counts of conspiracy to illegally control an enterprise and one count each of conspiracy

to commit burglary, use of an electronic communication in a drug-related transaction,

kidnaping, illegal control of an enterprise, attempted child prostitution, and pandering.

Petitioner presents five grounds for relief. (Doc. 1) 

On September 1, 2010, the Court granted Petitioner in forma pauperis status and

ordered Respondents to file an answer to the Petition within 40 days of the date of service.

(Doc. 9) Accordingly, Respondents’ answer is not yet due. Between September 7 and 22,

2010, Petitioner filed several motions: Motion for Release Order, Amended Motion for Release

Order, Motion for Specific/Special Action, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to

Expedite Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, respectively) 

Case 2:10-cv-01339-PGR Document 18 Filed 09/24/10 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 -

Petitioner’s pending motions reiterate the claims raised in his § 2254 Petition, argue

that Petitioner is in custody illegally, and request that the Court grant Petitioner the relief

requested in his Petition. Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition is not yet fully briefed and, thus, is not

ripe for review. Moreover, the Court will consider the Petition itself once briefing is completed

and Petitioner’s separate motions requesting the same relief are premature. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Release Order, Amended Motion for

Release Order, Motion for Specific/Special Action, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion

to Expedite Motion for Summary Judgment, docs. 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, respectively, are

DENIED, without prejudice, as premature. 

DATED this 24th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01339-PGR Document 18 Filed 09/24/10 Page 2 of 2