Myers v. Unknown Parties

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 29, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-01950
StatusUnknown

This text of Myers v. Unknown Parties (Myers v. Unknown Parties) 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
Myers v. Unknown Parties, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kenneth James Myers, No. CV 20-01950-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Gila County Sheriffs, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 Petitioner Kenneth James Myers, who is confined in a Gila County Jail, filed a pro 16 se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 17 Custody (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court 18 granted the Application and ordered Petitioner to show cause why the Petition and this case 19 should not be dismissed as moot. Petitioner has filed a response to the show cause order 20 (Doc. 5). The Court will discharge the show cause order and dismiss the Petition with 21 leave to file an amended petition naming a proper respondent and describing when and 22 how he has exhausted his challenges to his detention on a fugitive warrant in state court. 23 I. Petition 24 Petitioner names the “Gila County Sheriffs [sic]” as the Respondents and the 25 Arizona Attorney General as an additional Respondent. Petitioner indicated the following 26 in his Petition: he was detained on a fugitive warrant issued from Collin County, Texas; he 27 was arrested and appeared in the Gila County Justice Court-Payson Regional Justice Court 28 concerning “DR# 2020-10418/warrant# 2020253 Collin County”; and he appeared at an 1 August 18, 2020 hearing before Judge Little in the Payson Regional Justice Court. (Id.) 2 Petitioner alleged that he had not been convicted and was testing the legality of his 3 detention. He claimed that he was being held on a civil extradition matter absent a 4 governor’s warrant and absent a waiver. Petitioner attached the following documents to 5 his Petition: 6 • A “Gila County Justice Court, Payson Regional Justice Court Initial Appearance for Fugitive” document, which reflects that a criminal fugitive 7 warrant for forgery was issued by Texas. (Doc. 1 at 12.) The document 8 specifically states that Petitioner has the right to test the legality of his incarceration in Arizona by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 9 the Gila County Superior Court or to waive challenges to extradition. 10 • An August 18, 2020 “Misdemeanor/Felony Release Conditions and Release 11 Order,” which reflects that “Bond for Other Court,” specifically Collin 12 County, Texas, required an appearance bond of $20,000 with Petitioner to appear in court within ten days of release. (Id.) Petitioner was ordered to 13 appear on August 28, 2020 and, if he was released, to comply with conditions 14 of release.

15 • An August 18, 2020 Gila County search warrant authorizing a search of 16 Plaintiff, a vehicle, two cellular telephones, a tablet, and a laptop for evidence of fraud, drugs, and drug paraphernalia. (Id. at 15-16.) 17 18 • An August 18, 2020 “Criminal Complaint Fugitive from Justice” issued by the Gila County Justice Court, Payson Precinct. (Id. at 17-18). The Criminal 19 Complaint reflects that Petitioner was charged on July 14, 2020 in municipal 20 court in Collin County, Texas, with forgery in violation of “TX 32.21” and that Petitioner was taken into custody on August 17, 2020. (Id.) 21 22 • An August 18, 2020 Order in which the Justice of the Peace ordered Petitioner held in the Gila County Jail for a period not to exceed 30 days 23 unless he posted bail or was legally discharged. (Id.)

24 • A September 11, 2020 letter from the Payson Justice Court stating that 25 Petitioner had no further pending cases at the Justice and Magistrate Courts and referring to cases 2020IA472 and 2020IA473.1 (Id. at 19.) 26

27 28 1 These case numbers appear to refer to initial appearance proceedings in Gila County courts. 1 • A September 10, 2020 letter from Gila County Superior Court stating the court showed no record for cases 2020IA472 and 2020IA473. (Id. at 20.) 2 The Petition was signed by Plaintiff on September 21, 2020. 3 II. Response to Order to Show Cause 4 On September 22, 2020, Petitioner was indicted in Gila County Superior Court, 5 case# CR 2020-00380, for fraudulent schemes and artifices.2 A warrant for Petitioner’s 6 arrest was issued September 30, 2020, and Petitioner’s initial appearance was held the same 7 day.3 According to the docket in CR 2020-00380, the charge remains pending against 8 Plaintiff, who remains in custody.4 9 On January 11, 2021,5 proceedings in the Gila County Superior Court case 10 concerning Petitioner’s fugitive warrant, FW 2020000017, were continued.6 11 As reflected by Petitioner’s Response to the Show Cause Order, the Fugitive 12 Warrant case, FW 2020-00017, remains pending against Petitioner.7 Therefore, the Court 13 will discharge the Show Cause Order. 14 III. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 15 A petitioner for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must name the state 16 officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. See Rule 2(a), Rules 17 Governing Section 2254 Cases; Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1997). 18 In a case concerning pretrial detention, this person is the sheriff of the institution where the 19 petitioner is incarcerated. When a habeas petitioner has failed to name a respondent who 20

21 2 See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx, search case 22 CR202000380 (last accessed Jan. 21, 2021). 23 3 See n.1, infra. 24 4 See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx, search CR 2020-00380 (last accessed Jan. 21, 2021). Only some of the minute entries in this case are 25 viewable online, the October 27, 2020 Minute Entry reflects that the trial court granted Petitioner leave to represent himself with the assistance of advisory counsel. See id., click 26 “search for case minutes” and October 27, 2020 minute entry (last accessed Jan. 21, 2021.) 27 5 See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx, search FW 202000017 (last accessed Jan. 21, 2021). 28 6 Copies of minute entries in that case are not available online. 1 has the power to order the petitioner’s release, the Court “may not grant effective relief, 2 and thus should not hear the case unless the petition is amended to name a respondent who 3 can grant the desired relief.” Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 Petitioner has named “Gila County Sheriffs” as Respondents, but he has not named 5 the Gila County Sheriff as a Respondent. Therefore, the Petition will be dismissed, and 6 Petitioner will be given an opportunity to amend his Petition to name a proper Respondent. 7 IV. Additional Information to Include in an Amended Complaint 8 As stated in its previous Order, the Court considers Petitioner’s Petition under 28 9 U.S.C. § 2241. See Whelan v. Noelle, 966 F. Supp. 992, (D. Ore. Feb. 13, 1997). Section 10 2241 does not specifically require a petitioner to exhaust state remedies before filing a 11 federal petition for habeas corpus. See Snyder v. Flathead Co. Detention Center, No. 12 CV19-00019, 2019 WL 1547292, at *1 (D. Mont. Jan. 28, 2019) (Report & 13 Recommendation), adopted 2019 WL 1542871 (D. Mont. Apr. 9, 2019). The Ninth 14 Circuit, however, “require[s], as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust 15 available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241” in 16 immigration proceedings. Id. (citing Castro-INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), 17 abrogated on other grounds by Fernandez-Bargas v.

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

Related

United States Ex Rel. Drury v. Lewis
200 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1906)
Ex Parte Hawk
321 U.S. 114 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales
548 U.S. 30 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Ramon L. Smith v. State of Idaho
392 F.3d 350 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Powell v. State
507 P.2d 989 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
Applications of Oppenheimer
389 P.2d 696 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1964)
Whelan v. Noelle
966 F. Supp. 992 (D. Oregon, 1997)
Montgomery v. Blubaum
546 P.2d 1155 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1976)
Belgarde v. Montana
123 F.3d 1210 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Myers v. Unknown Parties, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-unknown-parties-azd-2021.