DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Petitioner Charles Marshall, who is confined in the Central Arizona Correctional Facility in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee and filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will require an answer to the Petition and will deny the Application to Proceed as moot.
Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #XXXX-XXXXXX, of seventeen counts of sexual conduct with a minor, three counts of molestation of a child, and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, and was sentenced to a 337-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner names Charles Ryan as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional Respondent. Petitioner raises one ground for relief. Petitioner alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel through all phases of his trial.
It is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted this claim in state court. Even if the exhaustion requirement has not been met, it appears that any unexhausted claims may be procedurally barred. In light of the possibility of procedural bar, a summary dismissal would be inappropriate. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351-52 (1989) (remanding where petitioner failed to exhaust claims and it was not clear whether the claims were procedurally barred). Accordingly, the Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
A. Address Changes
Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action.
Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy of every document that he files. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(a). Each filing must include a certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.
C. Possible Dismissal
If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Application to Proceed (Doc. 2) is ...