Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02279/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02279-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
James Franco
Respondent
Robert Thurman Thomas
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

TERMPSREF

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Thurman Thomas, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

James Franco, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2279-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner Robert Thurman Thomas, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and 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 #CR2007-161220-

001DT, of first-degree burglary and was sentenced to a 15-year term of imprisonment.

Petitioner states that he entered into a plea agreement for this enhanced sentence. In his

Petition, Petitioner names James Franco as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General

as an Additional Respondent. 

Petitioner raises three grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that he

was denied his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury because his sentence was enhanced

by aggravating factors that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In Ground Two,

Case 2:10-cv-02279-GMS Document 3 Filed 11/01/10 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 -

Petitioner asserts that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney

did not object to the “misuse” of aggravating factors. In Ground Three, he claims the trial

court illegally found the two aggravating factors which increased Petitioner’s sentence above

the presumptive sentence.

Petitioner alleges that he presented these grounds to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 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).

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Case 2:10-cv-02279-GMS Document 3 Filed 11/01/10 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 -

(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 Edward C. Voss 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 1st day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02279-GMS Document 3 Filed 11/01/10 Page 3 of 3