Armstrong v. Shinn

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

10 Petitioner, DEATH-PENALTY CASE

11 v. ORDER

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Shad Daniel Armstrong’s Motion to Defer 16 Ruling for Ninety Days. (Doc. 150.) Noting the substantial length of many of the pleadings 17 in this matter, the legal complexities presented, and opposing counsel’s late appearance, 18 Respondents have indicated they do not object to the Motion. (Doc. 151.) For those 19 reasons, in addition to the recent developments in United States Supreme Court and 20 Arizona jurisprudence noted by Petitioner (see Doc. 150 (citing Cruz v. Arizona, 143 S. Ct. 21 650 (2023), Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022), and Arizona Attys. For Crim. Justice 22 v. Ducey, No. CV-17-01422-PHX-SPL, 2022 WL 16631088 (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2022)), the 23 Court will grant the Motion. 24 Accordingly, 25 . . . . 26 . . . . 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Defer Ruling for Ninety 2| Days (Doc. 150) is granted. 3 Dated this 30th day of June, 2023. 4 5 6 — 4 tl fe 7 ANGE Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-