Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08516/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08516-3/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

Anthony Charles Hall,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-23-08516-PCT-GMS-DMF

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 18) regarding Respondent’s Motion for Stay and 

Resetting of Filing Deadline for Answer to Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 13). The R&R recommends that the Motion be granted. The Magistrate Judge 

advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 8

(citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner filed

a document entitled, “Petitioner Initiated Super Discovery” (Doc. 20) and Respondents 

filed a Response to Petitioner’s filing (Doc. 22) and Petitioner filed a Reply to 

Respondent’s Response (Doc. 23).

The Court has considered the parties’ filings and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). Petitioner’s filing (Doc. 20) 

Case 3:23-cv-08516-GMS Document 33 Filed 06/11/24 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

appears to be a 50-page statement of facts along with 150 pages of exhibits.1 Petitioner’s 

reply (Doc. 23) to Respondent’s response states Petitioner does not object to the stay (Doc. 

23, p. 2). Petitioner’s reply in support of his Super Notice seems to be more concerned that 

he filed the exhibits on the Court’s docket for future consideration since he alleges his mail 

may be being censored by ADOC staff. (Id.).

The Magistrate Judge determines that Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) presents unexhausted claims, and it is difficult to discern whether 

the Amended Petition’s claims are entirely unexhausted or a mix of unexhausted and 

technically exhausted claims. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations

and that a stay, rather than a dismissal without prejudice, will avoid statute of limitations 

issues from a renewed filing of habeas proceedings after Petitioner’s state court PCR 

proceedings relating to his manslaughter and theft of means of transportation convictions 

in Mohave County Superior Court (case number CR2021-00382) have concluded. The 

Court thus accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. 

Civ. P. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

(Doc. 18) is accepted and Respondent’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 13) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be stayed through the conclusion of 

Petitioner’s state court PCR proceedings relating to his manslaughter and theft of means of 

transportation convictions in Mohave County Superior Court (case number CR2021-

1 To the extend Petitioner’s filing is intended as an objection to the R&R, it is overlong. “Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and 

Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages. Local R. 

Civ. P. 7.2(e)(3). However, in light of Petitioner’s Reply stating he does not object to the 

stay, (Doc. 23, p. 2), the over-length filing is moot and will not be considered as an 

objection to the R&R. 

Case 3:23-cv-08516-GMS Document 33 Filed 06/11/24 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

00382) and that the Clerk of Court be directed to indicate on the docket that this case is 

stayed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ answer to the Amended Petition 

(Doc. 5) be due forty (40) days from Petitioner’s status report reflecting that his state court 

PCR proceedings relating to his manslaughter and theft of means of transportation 

convictions in Mohave County Superior Court (case number CR2021- 00382) have 

concluded. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a status report entitled 

“Notice of Status” with the Court within ninety days after this Order and within every sixty 

days thereafter regarding the status of his state court PCR proceedings relating to his 

manslaughter and theft of means of transportation convictions in Mohave County Superior 

Court (case number CR2021-00382).

Dated this 10th day of June, 2024.

Case 3:23-cv-08516-GMS Document 33 Filed 06/11/24 Page 3 of 3