Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01196/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01196-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
Reynard Allen Reynolds
Petitioner
Dora Schiro
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

SVK

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reynard Allen Reynolds, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schiro, et al. 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1196-PHX-DGC (HCE)

ORDER

Petitioner, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison, Tucson, Arizona, filed a pro

se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on May 1, 2006 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

May 16, 2006, the Court issued an order that instructed Petitioner to pay the five dollar

($5.00) filing fee or to file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Petitioner paid the

five dollar ($5.00) filing fee on May 30, 2006. The Court will order an answer.

Procedural Background

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his August 26, 2003 convictions for Second

Degree Burglary, case numbers CR-2002-095750 and CR-2002-094535, entered in Maricopa

County Superior Court. 

In his habeas petition, Petitioner raises two grounds for relief: 

(1) Petitioner was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the

trial court used facts not included in the indictment and not admitted to by the Petitioner to

Case 2:06-cv-01196-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

increase Petitioner’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum, the judge used

unconstitutional statutes to sentence Petitioner, and Petitioner was denied effective assistance

of counsel; and

(2) Petitioner was denied his rights under the Sixth Amendment and Supreme Court

decisions because his attorney never objected to sentencing statutes and procedures that were

illegal, resulting in a sentence that exceeds the legal limit, and his attorney never discussed

appeal or post-conviction relief with Petitioner.

Petitioner asserts that he has exhausted these claims. It is unclear whether Petitioner

has properly exhausted each of his claims, which requires presentation to the Arizona Court

of Appeals. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (when challenge

is not to a life sentence or capital sentence, exhaustion requires only fair presentation to the

Arizona Court of Appeals). It also appears that further review of Petitioner’s claims is not

available in the state courts. Consequently, any unexhausted claim may be procedurally

barred. However, 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

Case 2:06-cv-01196-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

defense. See Day v. McDonough, 126 S. Ct. 1675, 1679-80 (2006). 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

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 counsel. Any paper received by a

District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge that 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. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b),

failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may result in the dismissal of the action for

failure to prosecute.

(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

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

Case 2:06-cv-01196-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

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

of Civil Procedure 72.1 and 72.2 for further proceedings and a report and recommendation.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-DGC Document 6 Filed 06/20/06 Page 4 of 4