Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00297/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Respondent
Frederick Michael Ellis
Petitioner
Keith Hartsuck
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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frederick Michael Ellis, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Keith Hartsuck, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-297-PHX-JAT (JRI)

ORDER

Petitioner Frederick Michael Ellis, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 3). The Court will require an answer to the Petition.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust

account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

II. Petition

Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR-2008-146639-

001-DT, of theft of a means of transportation and was sentenced to a 10-year term of

imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner names Keith Hartsuck as Respondent and the

Case 2:11-cv-00297-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/01/11 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 -

Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises three grounds for

relief.

In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

were violated because statements he made that indicated his refusal to cooperate with the

police were admitted into evidence. In Ground Two, Petitioner asserts that there was a

violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), because the jury heard that Petitioner

invoked his Miranda rights. In Ground Three, Petitioner contends that his Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because statements he made to police and

firefighters that contained profanities were admitted into evidence.

Petitioner alleges that he presented these grounds for relief to the Arizona Court of

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

III. 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 2:11-cv-00297-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/01/11 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 ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.

(2) 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. 

(3) 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.

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

answer.

(5) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin 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 March, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00297-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/01/11 Page 3 of 3