Parks v. Mesa Municipal Court

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJuly 20, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-01147
StatusUnknown

This text of Parks v. Mesa Municipal Court (Parks v. Mesa Municipal Court) 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
Parks v. Mesa Municipal Court, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Mariah Brooks Parks, No. CV 22-01147-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Mesa Municipal Court, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 Petitioner Mariah Brooks Parks, who is not in custody, has filed a pro se Petition 16 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee. 17 The Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend. 18 I. Petition 19 Petitioner was convicted in Mesa Municipal Court, case #2020063164, of two 20 counts of disorderly conduct and one count of making threats and was sentenced to 60 days 21 in jail, with 45 days postponed, and 36 months unsupervised probation. On June 23, 2022, 22 the State filed a Petition to Revoke Probation.1 Petitioner apparently filed a Motion to Set 23 Aside the Petition to Revoke Probation, which the court denied on July 5, 2022.2 A case 24 status review is scheduled for July 20, 2022, and Petitioner is scheduled to be arraigned on 25 26

27 1 See https://ecourt.mesaaz.gov/EventInquiry?cn=2020063164 (last accessed July 28 11, 2022). 2 Id. 1 August 18, 2022.3 2 II. Failure to File Complete Form 3 Rule 3.5(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires a habeas corpus petitioner 4 to use a form approved by the Court and comply with the instructions provided with the 5 form. Among other things, the instructions provided with the form state:

6 All questions must be answered clearly and concisely in the appropriate 7 space on the form. If needed, you may attach additional pages. The form, however, must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. 8

9 . . . .

10 All questions must be answered concisely in the proper space on the form. 11 If you need more space, you may attach additional pages. But the form must be completely filled in to the extent applicable. 12 13 (Emphasis added.) 14 Petitioner’s Petition does not comply with Rule 3.5(a) because Petitioner has not 15 asserted any grounds for relief, identified any constitutional violation, or provided any 16 supporting facts. Instead, Petitioner directs the Court to various documents she includes 17 with the Petition. Petitioner must complete the form, and if she needs additional space, 18 she may attach additional pages. 19 III. Failure to Allege a Constitutional Violation 20 Section 2254(a), 28 U.S.C., requires the Court to “entertain an application for a writ 21 of habeas corpus [o]n behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 22 court only on the ground that she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 23 or treaties of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) Absent from Petitioner’s grounds 24 for relief is any statement that Petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or 25 the laws or treaties of the United States. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case 26 and will dismiss it. 27

28 3 Id. 1 IV. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 2 Petitioner names the Mesa Municipal Court as Respondent and Judge Raymond 3 Schumacher and the Arizona Attorney General as Additional Respondents. A petitioner 4 for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody 5 of her as the respondent to the petition. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 6 Cases; Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1997). A petitioner on 7 probation or parole must therefore name the probation or parole officer responsible for 8 petitioner’s supervision and the official in charge of the probation agency as respondents. 9 See Rule 2(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, advisory committee’s note to 1976 10 adoption; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 438 (2004) (“[A] habeas petitioner who 11 challenges a form of ‘custody’ other than present physical confinement may name as 12 respondent the entity or person who exercises legal control with respect to the challenged 13 ‘custody.’). When a habeas petitioner has failed to name a respondent who has the power 14 to order the petitioner’s release, the Court “may not grant effective relief, and thus should 15 not hear the case unless the petition is amended to name a respondent who can grant the 16 desired relief.” Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 Although Petitioner has properly named the Attorney General of the State of 18 Arizona as an additional respondent, she has not named as Respondents the probation 19 officer responsible for her supervision or the official in charge of the probation agency as 20 respondents. Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed, and Petitioner will be given an 21 opportunity to amend her Petition to name the proper Respondents. 22 V. Leave to Amend 23 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Petition will be dismissed with leave to 24 amend. Within 30 days, Petitioner may submit a first amended petition to cure the 25 deficiency outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Petitioner a court-approved form 26 to use for filing an amended petition. 27 If Petitioner files an amended petition, she must use the court-approved form, set 28 forth each claim in a separate ground, and specifically allege in each ground the particular 1 federal constitutional right allegedly violated, with supporting facts. For example, if 2 Petitioner claims her due process rights are violated, she must also include the federal rights 3 violated, such as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 4 Likewise, if Petitioner claims her right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, she 5 must also include the federal right violated, such as the Sixth Amendment of the United 6 States Constitution. 7 If Petitioner fails to file her amended petition on the court-approved form included 8 with this Order, it will be stricken, and the action dismissed without further notice to 9 Petitioner. 10 The amended petition must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court- 11 approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original Petition by reference. Any 12 amended petition submitted by Petitioner should be clearly designated as such on the face 13 of the document. 14 An amended petition supersedes the original petition. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 15 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 16 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the original pleading is treated as 17 nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any ground for relief that was raised in the original 18 petition and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice is waived 19 if it is not alleged in an amended petition. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 20 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 21 Petitioner should be aware that “[a]s an exercise of judicial restraint,” federal courts 22 “elect not to entertain habeas corpus challenges to state court proceedings until habeas 23 petitioners have exhausted state avenues for raising [a] federal claim.” Carden v. Montana, 24 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980).

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

Related

Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)
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)
Belgarde v. Montana
123 F.3d 1210 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Parks v. Mesa Municipal Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-mesa-municipal-court-azd-2022.