Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00717/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00717-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
Steven Thomas Bernal
Petitioner
Edwin Jensen
Respondent

Document Text:

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 ASH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Thomas Bernal,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Edwin Jensen, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV 20-00717-PHX-MTL (CDB)

ORDER

Petitioner Steven Thomas Bernal, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Yuma (ASPC-Yuma), has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee. The Court will require an 

answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR2017-

002543, of sale or transportation of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to a 14-year term 

of imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner names ASPC-Yuma Warden Edwin Jensen as 

Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner 

raises four grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction to render judgment or impose a sentence. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges 

that the judgment and sentence are unconstitutional because the record was not properly 

certified, that the court improperly instructed on facts that should have been left to the jury, 

and that the indictment was deficient. In Ground Three, Petitioner alleges that the State 

Case 2:20-cv-00717-MTL Document 4 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

TERMPSREF

failed to demonstrate his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And in Ground Four, Petitioner 

alleges that various constitutional violations occurred during his direct appeal and postconviction review.

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

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

If Petitioner’s 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.

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 ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order 

on the Respondent(s) and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by electronic mail 

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and the Memorandum of 

Understanding between the United States District Clerk of Court for the District of Arizona 

and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. Pursuant to the Memorandum of 

Understanding, copies of the Petition and this Order will be sent via Notice of Electronic 

Case 2:20-cv-00717-MTL Document 4 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Filing (NEF) to the State of Arizona Respondent through the Attorney General for the State 

of Arizona to designated electronic mail addresses. Within 2 business days, the Attorney 

General’s Office will acknowledge receipt of the Petition and the Court’s Order and within 

5 business days will either file a notice of appearance on behalf of Respondents or will 

notify the Court of the names of the Respondents on whose behalf the Arizona Attorney 

General’s Office will not accept service of process.

(2) 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. Respondents may 

file an answer that (a) is limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including, but not limited 

to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity; (b) raises affirmative 

defenses as to some claims and discusses the merits of others; or (c) discusses the merits 

of all claims. The failure to set forth an affirmative defense regarding a claim in an answer 

may be treated as a waiver of the defense as to that claim, Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 

198, 209-11 (2006), but an answer that is limited to affirmative defenses on a particular 

claim does not waive any argument on the merits as to that claim. If the answer only raises 

affirmative defenses, only those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be 

attached to the answer. If not, the answer must fully comply with all of the requirements 

of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

(3) Regarding courtesy copies of documents for chambers, Respondents are 

directed to review Section II(D) of the Court’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative 

Policies and Procedures Manual, which requires that “a courtesy copy of the filing, 

referencing the specific document number, shall be printed directly from CM/ECF.” 

CM/ECF Admin. Man. § II(D)(3) (emphasis added). See http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/

sites/default/files/documents/adm%20manual.pdf.

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

answer.

///

///

Case 2:20-cv-00717-MTL Document 4 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles 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 23rd day of April, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00717-MTL Document 4 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 4