Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01444/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01444-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
Toers Bijins
Respondent
Mario Oaxaca Ramirez
Petitioner

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

 1 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this case.

TERMPSREF

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mario Oaxaca Ramirez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Toers Bijins, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1444-PHX-SMM (JJM)

ORDER

Petitioner Mario Oaxaca Ramirez, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex, Meadows Unit, in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.# 1.)1

 He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The

Court will require an answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case no. CR2001-

009260, of sexual misconduct with a minor and was sentenced to a 13-year term of

imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner names Toers Bijins, warden, and the Arizona

Attorney General as Respondents. 

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. He alleges that he was denied the effective

assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to interview and present evidence from

three witnesses who could have exculpated Petitioner. He also alleges that he was denied the

right to testify at trial on his behalf to contradict state evidence. Petitioner alleges that

Case 2:07-cv-01444-SMM Document 3 Filed 09/21/07 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 -

imposition of a 13-year sentence was cruel and unusual and violated the Eighth Amendment

where probation was available and Petitioner was innocent of the crime. Last, Petitioner

alleges that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in violation of Petitioner’s federal due

process rights based upon the prosecutor’s alleged failure to disclose evidence to the defense

prior to trial. 

It is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted his claims. 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 the claims were procedurally

barred). Accordingly, an answer is required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

II. 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.

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).

Case 2:07-cv-01444-SMM Document 3 Filed 09/21/07 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 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

on the Respondents, including the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, by certified mail

pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(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 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.

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

answer.

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J. Marshall 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 20th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01444-SMM Document 3 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3