Armstrong v. Shinn

Opinion

WO

Shad Daniel Armstrong, No. CV-15-00358-TUC-RM

Petitioner, DEATH-PENALTY CASE

v. ORDER

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court is Petitioner Shad Daniel Armstrong’s Motion to Defer Ruling for Ninety Days. (Doc. 150.) Noting the substantial length of many of the pleadings in this matter, the legal complexities presented, and opposing counsel’s late appearance, Respondents have indicated they do not object to the Motion. (Doc. 151.) For those reasons, in addition to the recent developments in United States Supreme Court and Arizona jurisprudence noted by Petitioner (see Doc. 150 (citing Cruz v. Arizona, 143 S. Ct. 650 (2023), Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022), and Arizona Attys. For Crim. Justice v. Ducey, No. CV-17-01422-PHX-SPL, 2022 WL 16631088 (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2022)), the Court will grant the Motion. Accordingly, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Defer Ruling for Ninety Days (Doc. 150) is granted. Dated this 30th day of June, 2023. — 4 tl fe ANGE Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ United States District Judge

_2-