From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medrano v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 11, 2012
No. CV-99-00603-TUC-CKJ (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV-99-00603-TUC-CKJ

10-11-2012

Angel Mayora Medrano, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

For the reasons that follow, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the stay of his sentencing claims should not be lifted, the claims dismissed, and judgment entered.

In 1999, Petitioner initiated this habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The next year he filed an amended habeas petition raising numerous claims for relief from his state court conviction and capital sentence. (Doc. 30.) Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), this Court stayed Petitioner's sentencing-related claims pending successive state post-conviction proceedings based on Ring and Petitioner's alleged mental retardation. (Docs. 67, 80.) While state proceedings were ongoing, the Court ruled on Petitioner's conviction-related claims, concluding that he was not entitled to habeas relief. (Docs. 119, 176.)

Subsequently, the state court determined that Petitioner was mentally retarded, vacated his death sentence, and resentenced him to life imprisonment, rendering moot Petitioner's pending sentencing-related habeas claims. Because it appears that state court proceedings are concluded, the Court can discern no basis for maintaining the stay in this case or further postponing issuance of judgment. As already noted, the Court has ruled on all of Petitioner's conviction-related claims and his sentencing claims became moot when the state court vacated his capital sentence.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order, Petitioner shall show cause in writing why the stay of his sentencing claims should not be lifted, the claims dismissed as moot, and judgment entered. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, Respondents shall not file a response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion for issuance of a certificate of appealability shall be filed no later than twenty (20) days after the filing date of this Order. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, Respondents shall not file a response.

__________________

Cindy K. Jorgenson

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Medrano v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 11, 2012
No. CV-99-00603-TUC-CKJ (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Medrano v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:Angel Mayora Medrano, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Oct 11, 2012

Citations

No. CV-99-00603-TUC-CKJ (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2012)