Snyder 208783 v. Shinn

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 29, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01761
StatusUnknown

This text of Snyder 208783 v. Shinn (Snyder 208783 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
Snyder 208783 v. Shinn, (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 Dru Jacob Snyder, No. CV 20-01761-PHX-MTL (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 On September 4, 2020, Petitioner Dru Jacob Snyder, who is confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se “Motion To: Present to this Court that No 17 Lower Court(s) is Willing to Accept Jurisdiction” (“Motion”). To facilitate consideration 18 of the document, the Clerk of Court docketed it as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 11, 2020, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee 20 for a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In a September 21, 2020 Order, the Court dismissed 21 Petitioner’s Motion and gave him 30 days to file an amended petition using the court- 22 approved form included with the Order. 23 On October 8, 2020, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition (Doc. 6). The Court will 24 dismiss the Amended Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend. 25 I. Amended Petition 26 Petitioner pleaded guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR2006- 27 030204, to three counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor.1 On August 17, 2006, 28 1 See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/ 1 the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a 5-year term of imprisonment and a term of 2 probation.2 On June 18, 2008, the trial court dismissed Petitioner’s of-right Rule 32 3 petition for post-conviction relief.3 Petitioner apparently did not file a petition for review 4 from the dismissal of his Rule 32 petition. Petitioner was released from custody on May 5 20, 2010.4 Subsequently, Petitioner apparently violated the terms of his probation, and on 6 November 2, 2011, the trial court re-sentenced him to probation.5 7 On May 9, 2014, the State filed a Petition to Revoke Probation.6 On June 2, 2014, 8 the trial court re-sentenced him to probation.7 On June 16, 2016, the State filed another 9 Petition to Revoke Probation.8 On August 9, 2016, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a 10 term in the Maricopa County Jail.9 11 On June 24, 2019, the State filed a Petition to Revoke Probation.10 On October 1, 12 2019, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a 10-year term of imprisonment followed by 13 lifetime probation.11 On February 10, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice of Post-Conviction 14 Relief, and on February 24, 2020, he filed a second Notice of Post-Conviction Relief. On 15 March 12, 2020, the trial court dismissed Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. 16 Petitioner filed a “Motion to: Introduce this Special Action on Behalf of the Above CR No 17 caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2006-030204 (last accessed Oct. 9, 2020). 18 2 See id.; https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch (search by 19 inmate number 208783) (last accessed Oct. 9, 2020). 20 3 See supra n.1. 21 4 See https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch (search by inmate number 208783) (last accessed Oct. 9, 2020). 22 5 See supra n.1. 23 6 Id. 24 7 Id. 25 8 Id. 26 9 Id. 27 10 Id. 28 11 Id. 1 (Petition for Special Action)” in the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Doc. 1 at 5.) On August 2 14, 2020, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction. (Id. at 8.) 3 In his Amended Petition, Petitioner names David Shinn as Respondent and the 4 Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises two grounds for 5 relief. In Ground One, Petitioner states he was sentenced to “another lifetime probation 6 upon release.” In Ground Two, Petitioner states he was sentenced to the presumptive term 7 of imprisonment rather than the minimum term. 8 II. Failure to Allege a Constitutional Violation 9 Section 2254(a), 28 U.S.C., requires the Court to “entertain an application for a writ 10 of habeas corpus [o]n behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 11 court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 12 or treaties of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) Absent from Petitioner’s grounds 13 for relief is any statement that the Petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution 14 or the laws or treaties of the United States. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the 15 Amended Petition and will dismiss it. 16 III. Leave to Amend 17 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Amended Petition will be dismissed with 18 leave to amend. Within 30 days, Petitioner may submit a second amended petition to cure 19 the deficiency outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Petitioner a court-approved 20 form to use for filing a second amended petition. 21 If Petitioner files a second amended petition, he must use the court-approved form, 22 set forth each claim in a separate ground, and specifically allege in each ground the 23 particular federal constitutional right allegedly violated, with supporting facts. For 24 example, if Petitioner claims his due process rights are violated, he must also include the 25 federal rights violated, such as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 26 Constitution. Likewise, if Petitioner claims his right to effective assistance of counsel was 27 violated, he must also include the federal right violated, such as the Sixth Amendment of 28 the United States Constitution. 1 If Petitioner fails to file his second amended petition on the court-approved form 2 included with this Order, it will be stricken and the action dismissed without further notice 3 to Petitioner. 4 The second amended petition must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the 5 court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original Petition or Amended 6 Petition by reference. Any second amended petition submitted by Petitioner should be 7 clearly designated as such on the face of the document. 8 A second amended petition supersedes the original Petition and the Amended 9 Petition. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. 10 Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the 11 original Petition and Amended Petition are treated as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 12 1262. Any ground for relief that was raised in the original Petition or Amended Petition 13 and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not 14 alleged in a second amended petition. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 15 Cir. 2012) (en banc). 16 If Petitioner files a second amended petition, he should be aware that before the 17 Court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust remedies 18 available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 19 842 (1999). An Arizona petitioner sentenced to less than the death penalty may exhaust 20 his federal claims by presenting them in a procedurally proper way to the Arizona Court 21 of Appeals on direct appeal and/or in post-conviction proceedings, without seeking 22 discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F. Supp. 2d 23 925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following 1989 statutory amendment, Arizona Court of 24 Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal convictions involving less than a death sentence); 25 cf. Swoopes v.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Snyder 208783 v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-208783-v-shinn-azd-2020.