Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01239/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01239-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
Edward Bartos
Respondent
Aurelio Tovar
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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aurelio Tovar, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Edward Bartos, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1239-PHX-MHM (GEE)

ORDER

Petitioner Aurelio Tovar, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexFlorence, 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 require an answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR 2005-112749-

001 SE, of aggravated assault-domestic violence, sexual assault of a spouse, and kidnapingdomestic violence and was sentenced to a 7.5-year term of imprisonment. In his Petition,

Petitioner names Edward Bartos as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an

Additional Respondent. 

Petitioner raises three grounds for relief: (1) Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights were

violated and his sentence should be reduced; (2) Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights

were violated and his sentence should be reduced; and (3) Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated.

Case 2:07-cv-01239-MHM Document 6 Filed 08/22/07 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 -

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).

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 2:07-cv-01239-MHM Document 6 Filed 08/22/07 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 -

(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 Glenda E. Edmonds 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 21st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01239-MHM Document 6 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3