Ralph Edward Jones v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided June 11, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-08047·Unknown

Opinion

1 KEB 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ralph Edward Jones, No. CV-26-08047-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 Petitioner Ralph Edward Jones, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Tucson, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2254 (Doc. 1), an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and a 18 Motion to Stay (Doc. 5). The Court will grant the Application and require a response to 19 the Motion and an answer to the Petition. 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust 22 account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner’s 23 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See LRCiv 3.5(c). 24 II. Petition 25 Petitioner was convicted in Mohave County Superior Court, case #CR-2022-00845, 26 of one count each of possession of narcotic drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia, 27 and two counts each of disorderly conduct involving weapons and misconduct involving 28 weapons. He was sentenced to a 17-year term of imprisonment. In his Petition, Petitioner 1 names Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Re-entry Director Ryan 2 Thornell and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes as Respondents. 3 Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. In Ground One, he asserts that the state 4 court violated his due process rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 5 In Ground Two, Petitioner raises a claim for insufficiency of evidence in violation of his 6 due process rights. In Ground Three, he asserts a claim for insufficiency of evidence to 7 support his conviction for misconduct involving weapons. Finally, in Ground Four, 8 Petitioner brings a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. 9 The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 10 III. Motion to Stay 11 In the Petition, Petitioner includes claims that he raised in his pending petition for 12 post-conviction relief in the Arizona Court of Appeals. In his Motion to Stay, Petitioner 13 asks the Court to stay these proceedings and hold them in abeyance pending exhaustion of 14 his successive petition for post-conviction relief in the Arizona Court of Appeals. 15 Because the Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on Petitioner’s petition for post- 16 conviction relief, Petitioner’s additional claims may be unexhausted and he may be 17 asserting both unexhausted and exhausted claims in his Petition, i.e., a “mixed” petition. 18 In Henderson v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 872, 873-74 (9th Cir. 2013), the Ninth Circuit Court of 19 Appeals held that the district court erred as a matter of law when it dismissed a habeas 20 petition without offering the petitioner leave to amend to delete unexhausted claims, which 21 were raised in the petitioner’s concurrent state petition. In relevant part, the court stated 22 that:

23 Although district courts cannot adjudicate mixed petitions, Sherwood 24 [v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1983),] does not undermine the important precedent requiring district courts first to grant leave to amend and, if 25 requested, to consider a petitioner’s eligibility for a stay under Rhines [v. 26 Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-77 (2005)] (stay of entire petition), or under Kelly [v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2003)] (stay of exhausted claims 27 only). The district court erred by failing to allow Henderson leave to amend 28 her petition before dismissal, and by refusing to address Henderson’s request for relief under Rhines or Kelly. 1

2 710 F.3d at 874 (emphasis added). 3 Prior to any appearance by Respondents, a determination as to whether the Petition 4 is mixed or whether Petitioner should be afforded leave to amend to delete any unexhausted 5 claims or to request a stay, is premature. Accordingly, the Court will order service of the 6 Petition and Motion to Stay on Respondents. Within 40 days of the date of service, 7 Respondents must file a response to the Motion to Stay. If Respondents oppose the Motion, 8 Respondents must also file an answer to the Petition. If Respondents do not oppose the 9 Motion, Respondents must not answer the Petition until the Court orders Respondents to 10 do so. 11 IV. Warnings 12 A. Address Changes 13 Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 14 Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion 15 for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal 16 of this action. 17 B. Copies 18 Because Petitioner is currently confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections, 19 Rehabilitation & Reentry Complex or Private Facility subject to General Order 23-19, 20 Petitioner can comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) by including, with every 21 document Petitioner files, a certificate of service stating that this case is subject to General 22 Order 23-19 and indicating the date the document was delivered to prison officials for filing 23 with the Court. Petitioner is not required to serve Respondents with copies of every 24 document or provide an additional copy of every document for the Court’s use. 25 If Petitioner is transferred to a facility other than one subject to General Order 23- 26 19, Petitioner will be required to: (a) serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has 27 been entered, a copy of every document Petitioner files, and include a certificate stating 28 that a copy of the filing was served; and (b) submit an additional copy of every filing for 1 use by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and (d); LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may 2 result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner. 3 C. Possible Dismissal 4 If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 5 these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. 6 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action 7 for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 8 IT IS ORDERED: 9 (1) The Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. 10 (2) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the Motion to 11 Stay (Doc. 5), and this Order on the Respondent(s) and the Attorney General of the State 12 of Arizona by electronic mail pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 13 and the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States District Clerk of Court 14 for the District of Arizona and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. Pursuant to the 15 Memorandum of Understanding, copies of the Petition, the Motion to Stay, and this Order 16 will be sent via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to the State of Arizona Respondent 17 through the Attorney General for the State of Arizona to designated electronic mail 18 addresses.

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

Ralph Edward Jones v. Ryan Thornell, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Ralph Edward Jones v. Ryan Thornell, et al. (Ralph Edward Jones v. Ryan Thornell, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rhines v. Weber
544 U.S. 269 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Day v. McDonough
547 U.S. 198 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Sherwood v. Tomkins
716 F.2d 632 (Ninth Circuit, 1983)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Andreas Kelly v. Larry Small, Warden
315 F.3d 1063 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Jennifer Henderson v. Deborah K. Johnson, Warden
710 F.3d 872 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)