Nelson v. Arizona, State of

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 18, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-02358·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 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 On December 4, 2020, Petitioner Micheal Nelson, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se “Request to File 28 USC 2254-28 USC 2255.” 17 To facilitate consideration of the Request, the Clerk of Court docketed it as a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner did not pay the $5.00 filing 19 fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a December 10, 2020 Order, 20 the Court dismissed the Request and gave Petitioner 30 days to (1) pay the filing fee or file 21 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and (2) file an amended petition using the 22 court-approved form included with the Order. 23 On December 21, 2020, Petitioner filed an unsigned Amended Petition and an 24 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a December 30, 2020 Order, the Court 25 denied the deficient Application to Proceed with leave to refile within 30 days. 26 On January 14, 2021, Petitioner filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma 27 Pauperis. In a January 22, 2021 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and 28 gave Petitioner 30 days to file a completed and signed Certificate, using the Certificate 1 form included with the Order, certifying that Petitioner’s signature on the Certificate will 2 serve as an original signature, under penalty of perjury, on his Amended § 2254 Petition 3 for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2242, Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 4 Cases, Rule 3.5(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 5 of Civil Procedure. 6 On February 2, 2021, Petitioner filed the Certificate. In a February 10, 2021 Order, 7 the Court dismissed the Amended Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend 8 because Petitioner had failed to allege a constitutional violation. The Court gave Petitioner 9 30 days to file a second amended petition. The Court explicitly warned Petitioner that he 10 must use the court-approved form for his second amended petition, and that if he failed to 11 use the court-approved form, the second amended petition would be stricken and this action 12 dismissed without further notice to Petitioner. 13 On March 15, 2021, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition (Doc. 11) and a 14 Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 13). 15 I. Second Amended Petition not on Court-Approved Form 16 Pursuant to Rule 3.5(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner is required 17 to use a court-approved form when he files a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 The Court may, in its discretion, forgo the requirement that a petitioner use a court- 19 approved form. See LRCiv 3.5(a). The Court will require use of the court-approved form 20 because Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition does not substantially comply with the 21 court-approved form. The Court will dismiss the Second Amended Petition without 22 prejudice and will give Petitioner one final opportunity within 30 days to file a third 23 amended petition using the court-approved form included with this Order. The Court 24 will deny as moot Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time. 25 II. Leave to Amend 26 Within 30 days, Petitioner may submit a third amended petition on the court- 27 approved form. The Clerk of Court will mail Petitioner a court-approved form to use for 28 filing a third amended petition. If Petitioner fails to use the court-approved form, the 1 Court will strike the third amended petition and dismiss this action without further 2 notice to Petitioner. 3 Petitioner’s third amended petition should clearly set out each claim Petitioner is 4 making. If Petitioner cannot fit all of his supporting facts or arguments in favor of a 5 particular ground on the court-approved form, then he may continue on an attachment, but 6 each matter on any attachment must be clearly referenced to a particular ground on the 7 court-approved form. 8 The third amended petition must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court- 9 approved form and may not incorporate any part of any previous Petition by reference. Any 10 third amended petition submitted by Petitioner should be clearly designated as such on the 11 face of the document. 12 A third amended petition supersedes all previous Petitions. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 13 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 14 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the previous pleadings are treated as 15 nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any ground for relief that was raised in a previous 16 Petition and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice is waived 17 if it is not alleged in a third amended petition. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 18 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 19 If Petitioner files a third amended petition, he must set forth each claim in a separate 20 ground, and specifically allege in each ground the particular federal constitutional right 21 allegedly violated, with supporting facts. For example, if Petitioner claims his due process 22 rights are violated, he must also include the federal rights violated, such as the Fifth and 23 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Likewise, if Petitioner claims 24 his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, he must also include the federal 25 right violated, such as the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 26 . . . . 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1| Il. Warnings 2 A. Address Changes 3 Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion 5 | for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal 6| of this action. 7 B. Possible Dismissal 8 If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to 11 | comply with any order of the Court). 12| ITIS ORDERED: 13 (1) The Second Amended Petition (Doc. 11) is dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner has 30 days from the date of filing of this Order to file a third amended § 2254 15 | petition in compliance with this Order. 16 (2) If Petitioner fails to file a third amended petition within 30 days, the Clerk of 17 | Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without 18 | further notice to Petitioner and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. 19 (3) Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time (Doc. 13) is denied as moot. 20 (4) The Clerk of Court must send Petitioner the current court-approved form for filing a “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State 22 | Custody (Non-Death Penalty).” 23 Dated this 18th day of March, 2021. 24 Wichad T. gibuade Michael T. Liburdi 27 United States District Judge 28

Instructions for Filing a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

1. Who May Use This Form.

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

Nelson v. Arizona, State of, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Nelson v. Arizona, State of (Nelson v. Arizona, State of) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)