Nelson v. Arizona, State of

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedDecember 10, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-02358
StatusUnknown

This text of Nelson v. Arizona, State of (Nelson v. Arizona, State of) 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
Nelson v. Arizona, State of, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Micheal Nelson, No. CV 20-02358-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 Petitioner Micheal Nelson,1 who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex- 16 Tucson, has filed a pro se “Request to File 28 USC 2254-28 USC 2255” (Doc. 1). To 17 facilitate consideration of the Request, the Clerk of Court docketed it as a petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee 19 or filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 I. Failure to Comply with Local Rule 3.5(b) 21 Rule 3.5(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[i]f a habeas corpus 22 petitioner desires to prosecute the petition in forma pauperis, the petitioner shall file an 23 application to proceed in forma pauperis on a form approved by the Court, accompanied 24 by a certification of the warden or other appropriate officer of the institution in which the 25 petitioner is confined as to the amount of money or securities on deposit to the petitioner’s 26

27 1 According to Petitioner’s Arizona Department of Corrections Inmate Record, the 28 correct spelling of his name is “Michael Nelson.” See https://corrections.az.gov/public- resources/inmate-datasearch (search by inmate number 321290) (last accessed Dec. 8, 2020). 1 credit.” Rule 3.5(b) also requires payment of the $5.00 filing fee if a petitioner has in 2 excess of $25.00 in his inmate account. 3 Because Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or filed an Application to 4 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Petitioner will be given 30 days from the date this Order is 5 filed to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma 6 Pauperis using the form included with this Order. 7 II. Request not on Court-Approved Form 8 Pursuant to Rule 3.5(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner is required 9 to use a court-approved form when he files a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 10 The Court may, in its discretion, forgo the requirement that a petitioner use a court- 11 approved form. See LRCiv 3.5(a). The Court will require use of the court-approved form 12 because Petitioner’s Request does not substantially comply with the court-approved form. 13 The Court will dismiss the Request without prejudice and with leave to file an amended 14 petition within 30 days. 15 III. Leave to Amend 16 Within 30 days, Petitioner may submit an amended petition on the court-approved 17 form. The Clerk of Court will mail Petitioner a court-approved form to use for filing a 18 § 2254 Petition. If Petitioner fails to use the court-approved form, the Court may strike the 19 amended petition and dismiss this action without further notice to Petitioner. 20 Petitioner’s amended petition should clearly set out each claim Petitioner is making. 21 If Petitioner cannot fit all of his supporting facts or arguments in favor of a particular 22 ground on the court-approved form, then he may continue on an attachment, but each 23 matter on any attachment must be clearly referenced to a particular ground on the court- 24 approved form. 25 The amended petition must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court- 26 approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original Petition by reference. Any 27 amended petition submitted by Petitioner should be clearly designated as such on the face 28 of the document. 1 An amended petition supersedes the original Petition. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 2 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 3 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original pleading is treated as 4 nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any ground for relief that was raised in the original 5 Petition and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice is waived 6 if it is not alleged in an amended petition. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 7 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 8 If Petitioner files an amended petition, he must set forth each claim in a separate 9 ground, and specifically allege in each ground the particular federal constitutional right 10 allegedly violated, with supporting facts. For example, if Petitioner claims his due process 11 rights are violated, he must also include the federal rights violated, such as the Fifth and 12 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Likewise, if Petitioner claims 13 his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, he must also include the federal 14 right violated, such as the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 15 Petitioner should be aware that a petitioner for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. 17 See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 18 1212 (9th Cir. 1997). Typically, this person is the warden of the institution where the 19 petitioner is incarcerated. When a habeas petitioner has failed to name a respondent who 20 has the power to order the petitioner’s release, the Court “may not grant effective relief, 21 and thus should not hear the case unless the petition is amended to name a respondent who 22 can grant the desired relief.” Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). 23 Petitioner should also take note that before the Court may grant habeas relief to a 24 state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). An Arizona petitioner 26 sentenced to less than the death penalty may exhaust his federal claims by presenting them 27 in a procedurally proper way to the Arizona Court of Appeals on direct appeal and/or in 28 post-conviction proceedings, without seeking discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme 1 Court. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F. Supp. 2d 925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following 2 1989 statutory amendment, Arizona Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal 3 convictions involving less than a death sentence); cf. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 4 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing pre-1989 statute). To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must 5 describe “both the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his claim is based 6 so that the state courts [could] have a ‘fair opportunity’ to apply controlling legal principles 7 to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim.” Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 8 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.

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

Related

O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Andreas Kelly v. Larry Small, Warden
315 F.3d 1063 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Ramon L. Smith v. State of Idaho
392 F.3d 350 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Crowell v. Knowles
483 F. Supp. 2d 925 (D. Arizona, 2007)
Belgarde v. Montana
123 F.3d 1210 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nelson v. Arizona, State of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-arizona-state-of-azd-2020.