Romero v. Shinn

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJune 28, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-01039
StatusUnknown

This text of Romero v. Shinn (Romero v. Shinn) 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
Romero v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Carlos B. Romero, No. CV 21-01039-PHX-MTL (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 On June 14, 2021, Petitioner Carlos B. Romero, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Florence in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se “Application to 17 Bookmark My § 2254 Writ of Habeas Corpus Claims and Request for Equitable 18 Tolling” (Doc. 1). The Court will deny the Application and will dismiss this action without 19 prejudice. 20 In his Application, Petitioner asks the Court to “bookmark” his habeas corpus 21 claims, “provide equitable tolling of claims,” and “excuse any procedural default.” The 22 Court will deny these requests. Petitioner’s Application is not accompanied by a petition 23 for writ of habeas corpus and the Court is not able to construe Petitioner’s Application as 24 a petition for writ of habeas corpus because the Application is not accompanied by the 25 statutory filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, is not filed on the court- 26 approved form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, does not specify any grounds 27 for habeas corpus relief, and does not set forth any facts supporting any grounds for relief. 28 See Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 1 Courts; LRCiv 3.5. Also, Petitioner’s Application does not provide any information about 2 his conviction, such as the name and location of the court that entered the judgment of 3 conviction, the date of the judgment of conviction, the crime(s) for which he was convicted, 4 or the length of his sentence(s). 5 Petitioner, in essence, appears to be seeking an advisory opinion from this Court 6 regarding the application of the time limits imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which 7 provides in part that “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ 8 of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 9 However, a federal court may not issue advisory opinions. See United States v. Cook, 795 10 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (district court erred in tolling statute of limitations as to 11 future claims by persons not party to the case before the court). 12 The Court will deny the Application and will dismiss this matter without prejudice. 13 Because this matter is being dismissed without prejudice, Petitioner is in no way prevented 14 by this Order from filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, accompanied by either the 15 statutory filing fee or an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. As a courtesy to 16 Petitioner, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send Petitioner the court-approved 17 forms for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an Application to Proceed In Forma 18 Pauperis. Petitioner may not, however, file those documents in this case; he must file 19 a new case. 20 Any future petition filed by Petitioner must be filed on the court-approved form and 21 must: (1) name Petitioner’s current custodian as a respondent; (2) show how Petitioner is 22 being held in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; 23 (3) specify all the exhausted grounds for relief available to Petitioner; (4) set forth in 24 summary form the facts supporting each of his grounds; and (5) provide information as to 25 how Petitioner has first exhausted his state court remedies as to each ground on which he 26 requests action by this Court. 27 In the event the respondent in any future habeas action filed by Petitioner raises the 28 one-year period of limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) as an affirmative defense, Petitioner 1 will be free to argue that his petition is subject to statutory or equitable tolling. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (“[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post- 3 conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is 4 pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection”); see 5 also Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (section 2244(d) is subject to 6 equitable tolling based on a showing of “exceptional circumstances” beyond the prisoner’s 7 control). 8 Petitioner should take note that before the Court may grant habeas relief to a state 9 prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). An Arizona petitioner 11 sentenced to less than the death penalty may exhaust his federal claims by presenting them 12 in a procedurally proper way to the Arizona Court of Appeals on direct appeal and/or in 13 post-conviction proceedings, without seeking discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme 14 Court. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F. Supp. 2d 925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following 15 1989 statutory amendment, Arizona Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal 16 convictions involving less than a death sentence); cf. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 17 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing pre-1989 statute). To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must 18 describe “both the operative facts and the federal legal theory on which his claim is based 19 so that the state courts [could] have a ‘fair opportunity’ to apply controlling legal principles 20 to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim.” Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 21 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled 22 in part on other grounds by Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007)). The failure 23 to exhaust subjects the petition to dismissal. See Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 24 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 IT IS ORDERED: 26 (1) Petitioner’s “Application to Bookmark My § 2254 Writ of Habeas Corpus 27 Claims and Request for Equitable Tolling” (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed 28 without prejudice; the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 1 (2) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 2| event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability | because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 4| Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 5 (3) | The Clerk of Court must provide Petitioner with the current court-approved 6| forms for filing a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody 7 | Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

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)
Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Andreas Kelly v. Larry Small, Warden
315 F.3d 1063 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Crowell v. Knowles
483 F. Supp. 2d 925 (D. Arizona, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Romero v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-shinn-azd-2021.