Gonzales, et al v. Schriro, et al

Filing 227

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that, construed as a motion for suspension from Local Rule Civil 15.1(a), Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification (Doc. 226 ) is GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 1/29/14. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10

Ernest Valencia Gonzales,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

14

Respondents.

15
16

) No. CV-99-2016-PHX-SMM
)
)
) DEATH PENALTY CASE
)
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

17

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification

18

of the Court’s order of January 23, 2014, dismissing his motion to amend without prejudice.

19

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion as a request for suspension of Local Rule Civil

20

15.1(a), which provides that a party moving to amend shall attach the proposed amended

21

pleading as an exhibit to the motion and shall indicate in what respect the proposed amended

22

pleading differs from that which it amends.1

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner notes in his motion that his “Reply to Motion to Amend and/or
Supplement and Motion to Stay” filed December 23, 2013, requested in a footnote that he
be exempted from Local Rule Civil 15.1(a). It is well settled that parties “cannot raise a new
issue for the first time in their reply briefs.” State of Nev. v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545, 1560
(9th Cir. 1990). More critically, requests for suspension of rules governing the form and
filing of pleadings are not properly raised either in a reply brief or a footnote, but must be
filed before or simultaneous with the proposed pleading. See, e.g., D. Ariz. LR Civ 7.2(c)
(limiting length of motions and responsive briefs “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the

1

Because Petitioner has withdrawn numerous claims and elected not to brief the merits

2

of some of the claims raised in his first amended petition, the Court finds good cause to

3

suspend one aspect of Local Rule 15.1(a). See D. Ariz. LR Civ 83.6 (providing that local

4

rules may be suspended for good cause shown). Specifically, Petitioner need not file a

5

proposed second amended petition that includes all of his previously raised claims. Rather,

6

Petitioner shall attach as an exhibit to his motion to amend a proposed amended petition that

7

sets forth only those new claims for which he seeks amendment. The claims shall be

8

numbered consecutively to those raised in the first amended petition (Doc. 28).

9

Based on the foregoing,

10

IT IS ORDERED that, construed as a motion for suspension from Local Rule Civil

11

15.1(a), Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification (Doc. 226) is

12

GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein.

13

DATED this 29th day of January, 2014.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Court”); Ninth Circuit Rule 32–2 (motions to exceed page limitation shall be filed “on or
before” brief’s due date).
-2-