Kauffman 360639 v. Thornell

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 15, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-08083
StatusUnknown

This text of Kauffman 360639 v. Thornell (Kauffman 360639 v. Thornell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kauffman 360639 v. Thornell, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, No. CV-24-08083-PCT-JAT (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 Self-represented Petitioner Luke Zion Yochai-Adams-Trimmer, who is also known 16 as Zion Z. Kauffman, is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis. He filed a 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), which is actually 18 two separate Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging two separate state court 19 convictions, and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will 20 grant the Application to Proceed, dismiss without prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas 21 Corpus, and give Petitioner 30 days to either (1) file an amended petition challenging both 22 of his criminal cases or (2) file an amended petition in this action challenging one of his 23 criminal cases and a petition in a new action challenging the other criminal case. 24 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 25 Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust 26 account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s 27 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See LRCiv 3.5(c). 28 . . . . 1 II. Petitions 2 Petitioner filed one document containing two separate petitions for a writ of habeas 3 corpus. The first petition (Doc. 1 at 1-15) challenges his conviction in Mohave County 4 Superior Court criminal case #CR2020-01264, and the second petition (Doc. 1 at 16-57) 5 challenges his conviction in Mohave County Superior Court criminal case #CR2021- 6 00087. 7 It appears Petitioner has misunderstood the instructions provided with the court- 8 approved form. Section 12(a) of the instructions states: 9 Judgment Entered by a Single Court. You may challenge the judgment 10 entered by only one court. Multiple counts which resulted in a judgment by the same court may be challenged in the same petition. 11 If you wish to challenge judgments entered by more than one court, however, you must file separate petitions for each judgment. 12 13 This instruction stems from Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 14 United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, which states that “[a] petitioner who 15 seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court must file as separate petition 16 covering the judgment or judgments of each court.” As explained in the Advisory 17 Committee Notes, this subsection 18 provides that a single petition may assert a claim only against the judgment or judgments of a single state court (i.e., a court of the same 19 county or judicial district or circuit). This permits, but does not 20 require, an attack in a single petition on judgments based upon separate indictments or on separate counts even though sentences 21 were imposed on separate days by the same court. A claim against a 22 judgment of a court of a different political subdivision must be raised by means of a separate petition. 23 24 Rule 2, Advisory Committee Notes (1976 Adoption) (referring to the subsection then 25 codified as Rule 2(d)). 26 Petitioner can challenge convictions in two different criminal cases from the same 27 state court in a single § 2254 petition. See Hardemon v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 272, 276 28 (5th Cir. 2008) (“We hold that under former Rule 2(d), [petitioner] was permitted, but not 1 required, to challenge his separate convictions in a single § 2254 petition.”) (emphasis in 2 original); Smith v. Baker, 2017 WL 4467546, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 2017) (“Habeas 3 Rule 2(e) does not prohibit petitioner from challenging in a single federal petition a 4 conviction in two different cases from the same state court.”). Alternatively, Petitioner can 5 file a § 2254 action for each of his state court convictions; if he chooses this option, he 6 must file a § 2254 petition challenging one criminal case in one action and a separate 7 § 2254 petition challenging the other criminal case in the other action (and in each action, 8 he must either pay the filing fee or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis). What 9 Petitioner cannot do is what he did here—file two petitions in the same action. 10 Thus, the Court will dismiss the Petition. The Court will give Petitioner 30 days to 11 either (1) file a single amended petition in this action challenging both CR2020-01264 and 12 CR2021-00087 or (2) file an amended petition in this action challenging one of his criminal 13 cases and a petition in a new action challenging the other criminal case. 14 III. Leave to Amend 15 The Clerk of Court will mail Petitioner a court-approved form to use for filing a 16 § 2254 Petition. If Petitioner fails to file his amended petition on the court-approved form 17 included with this Order, it will be stricken and the action dismissed without further notice 18 to Petitioner. 19 The amended petition must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court- 20 approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original Petition by reference. Any 21 amended petition submitted by Petitioner should be clearly designated as such on the face 22 of the document. 23 An amended petition supersedes the original petition. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 24 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 25 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original pleading is treated as 26 nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any ground for relief that was raised in the original 27 petition and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice is waived 28 1 if it is not alleged in an amended petition. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 2 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 3 If Petitioner files an amended petition, he must use the court-approved form, set 4 forth each claim in a separate ground, and specifically allege in each ground the particular 5 federal constitutional right allegedly violated, with supporting facts. For example, if 6 Petitioner raises a claim regarding a search, he should also include the federal right 7 violated, such as the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 8 IV. Warnings 9 A. Address Changes 10 Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 11 Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion 12 for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal 13 of this action. 14 B. Possible Dismissal 15 If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 16 these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 17 F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order 18 of the Court). 19 IT IS ORDERED: 20 (1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 21 (2) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed 22 without prejudice, with leave to amend. 23 (3) Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Petitioner must either (a) file 24 a single amended petition in this action challenging both Mohave Superior Court criminal 25 cases (CR2020-01264 and CR2021-00087) or (b) file an amended petition in this action 26 challenging one of his criminal cases and a petition in a new action challenging the other 27 criminal case. 28 . . . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hardemon v. Quarterman
516 F.3d 272 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kauffman 360639 v. Thornell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-360639-v-thornell-azd-2024.