Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00617/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00617-0/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

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerald Clarence Gilgren, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0617-PHX-DGC (BPV)

ORDER

Petitioner, presently confined in the Cook Unit - Eyman, at the Arizona State Prison

Complex in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will order an answer.

A. Procedural Background

On February 12, 1999, in the Maricopa County Superior Court, Matter No. CR 98-

01090, Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of manslaughter and one count of aggravated

assault. He was sentenced to a term of 15 years. His post-conviction petition was denied by

the superior court on October 15, 1999. Petitioner filed a second post-conviction petition

which was denied by the superior court on August 9, 2002, and his appeal therefrom was

denied by the Arizona Court of Appeals on September 1, 2003. The state supreme court

denied review of the second petition on February 17, 2004. Petitioner then filed a special

action in the superior court which was dismissed on February 23, 2005, and the Arizona

Court of Appeals thereby denied review.

Case 2:06-cv-00617-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

In his habeas petition, Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: (1) his aggravated

sentence violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amended rights; and (2) his due process rights

were violated because his plea agreement included a prior conviction which the state

conceded was incorrect, but his counsel failed to object to the sentencing range.

Petitioner asserts that he has either exhausted the claims or that exhaustion is not

required. Even assuming that the exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that

any unexhausted claim may be procedurally barred. In light of the possibility of procedural

bar, a summary dismissal would be inappropriate. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346,

351-52 (1989) (remanding where petitioner failed to exhaust claims and it was not clear

whether claims were procedurally barred). Accordingly, an answer is required. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) A copy of the Petition and this Order be served by the Clerk of Court upon the

Respondent and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail pursuant to

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(2) Respondent shall answer the Petition within forty (40) days of the date of service.

Respondent shall 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 constitute a waiver of the

defense. See Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Morrison

v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2005). If not limited to affirmative defenses, the

answer shall fully comply with all of the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases.

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

answer.

(4) Petitioner shall serve upon Respondent, or if appearance has been entered by

Case 2:06-cv-00617-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for

consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original document and copy, to

be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of

the pleading or document was mailed to Respondent or the counsel. Any paper received by

a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the

Court may be disregarded by the Court.

(5) At all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner shall immediately advise

the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned

“NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice shall contain only information

pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. The notice shall not include any

motions for any other relief. Failure to file a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may

result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

(6) Aside from the two copies of the petition or amended petition that must be

submitted, a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall accompany

each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the District Judge

or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned. Failure to comply with this requirement

may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

(7) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco pursuant to Rule

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

recommendation.

DATED this 30th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00617-DGC Document 3 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3