Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00655/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00655-0/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 TERMPSREF

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Lee Patterson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-655-PHX-SMM (HCE)

ORDER

On April 3, 2008, Petitioner Charles Lee Patterson, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Tucson in Tucson, Arizona, filed a “Motion for Delayed Petition,

Pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases” (Doc. #1). On April 7, 2008,

Petitioner lodged a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. #3) and filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #4).

The Court will deny the Motion for Delayed Petition, grant the Application to

Proceed, direct the Clerk of Court to file the lodged Petition, and require Respondents to

answer the Petition.

I. Motion for Delayed Petition

In his Motion for Delayed Petition, Petitioner seeks an extension of time to file his

§ 2254 petition because prison authorities confiscated one of his legal boxes. He makes his

Case 2:08-cv-00655-SMM Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 5
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 1

At this time, the Court reaches no conclusion as to whether Petitioner’s calculation is

correct or, if it is not, whether equitable tolling is available.

TERMPSREF - 2 -

request pursuant to “Rule 9(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.” Petitioner contends

that his “one year deadline will be up April 4, 2008.” 

First, Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts does not contain a subsection (a). Second, Rule 9 applies when a petitioner wants to

present a second or successive petition. In his Petition, however, Petitioner declares under

penalty of perjury that he has not previously filed a habeas petition in federal court regarding

the convictions he is challenging in his Petition. 

Third, Petitioner also declares that his Petition was placed in the prison mailing

system on April 3, 2008. Because a habeas petition is deemed filed when handed by the

prisoner to a prison official for forwarding to the court, see Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d

1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003), Petitioner’s Petition would be timely, without an extension of

time, if his calculation of his statute of limitations is correct.1

 

Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion for Delayed Petition. However, the Court

will direct the Clerk of Court to file the lodged Petition.

II. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust

account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

III. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR2004-035427,

of armed robbery and resisting arrest. Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior

Court, case #CR2004-039033, of armed robbery and robbery. He was sentenced to a

combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling 16.75 years’ imprisonment.

In his Petition, Petitioner names Dora Schriro as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney

General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises six grounds for relief.

Case 2:08-cv-00655-SMM Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 5
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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

In Ground One, Petitioner asserts that the trial court gave Petitioner erroneous advice

at the change of plea hearing, in violation of Petitioner’s rights to due process and equal

protection. In Ground Two, Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by aggravating

Petitioner’s sentence by “using the dangerousness twice on the armed robbery charges, and

by giving consecutive sentence on [the] resisting arrest charge.” Petitioner contends that this

violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and a jury trial, and violated the

prohibitions against double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment.

In Ground Three, Petitioner claims a violation of his rights to due process and equal

protection because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him and erred by letting

Petitioner’s attorney state the factual basis for the pleas. In Ground Four, Petitioner claims

a violation of his rights to due process, equal protection, and a jury trial because the trial

court erred by failing to inform Petitioner of his constitutional right to have a jury “determine

the facts to aggravate his sentence.” 

In Ground Five, Petitioner alleges a violation of his rights to due process and equal

protection because the sentencing minute entry failed to give Petitioner presentence

incarceration credit for the resisting arrest charge. In Ground Six, Petitioner asserts a

violation of his Sixth Amendment rights because he received ineffective assistance of

counsel.

Petitioner claims that he presented all of his grounds to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

IV. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

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.

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:08-cv-00655-SMM Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 3 of 5
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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

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).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s “Motion for Delayed Petition” (Doc. #1) is denied. 

(2) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #4) is granted.

(3) The Clerk of Court must file the lodged Petition (Doc. #3).

(4) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. #3) and this Order

on the Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(5) Respondents must answer the Petition within 40 days of the date of service.

Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer but may file an answer

limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, statute of limitations,

procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to affirmative defenses, only

those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be attached to the answer.

Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be treated as a waiver of the

defense. Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (2006). If not limited to affirmative

defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Case 2:08-cv-00655-SMM Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 4 of 5
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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

(6) Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the

answer.

(7) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00655-SMM Document 5 Filed 04/28/08 Page 5 of 5