Dema v. Arizona Department of Economic Security et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and the appeal filed on 4/25/11 (doc. 8) is deemed timely filed; denying 9 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/12/11.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Victor O’Neil Dema, as Natural Father of
Child H.R.D. (D.O.B. 1997),

ORDER
Petitioners,

11
12
13
14

No. CV-11-149-PHX-DGC (LOA)

vs.
Arizona State Department of Economic
Security, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16

In an order dated March 24, 2011, the Court dismissed the petition for writ of

17

habeas corpus filed by Petitioner Victor Dema and his “Co-Petitioning child” on the

18

ground that the Court is without jurisdiction over habeas actions challenging the custody

19

of a minor child placed in foster homes pursuant to a state court order. Doc. 4. Petitioner

20

Dema has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Doc. 6. Petitioner also has

21

filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal (Doc. 7) and a motion for leave

22

to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 9).

23

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

24

circumstances. Such a motion is denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing

25

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention

26

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d

27

934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502,
at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008).
Having carefully reviewed Petitioner Dema’s motion, the Court finds no basis for
reconsidering the March 24 order dismissing the habeas petition. In short, Petitioner’s
claims “challenging the state court’s determinations regarding his parental rights and the
custody of his child[] are not cognizable for federal habeas relief.” Marquez v. Santa
Cruz County Super. Ct., No. C 09-5397 WHA (PR), 2009 WL 4507747, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
Nov. 30, 2009) (citing Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Servs., 458 U.S. 502,
511-12 (1982)). The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 6) will be denied.
Petitioner’s motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal (Doc. 7) will be
granted. The notice of appeal filed on April 25, 2011 (Doc. 8) is deemed timely filed.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis
(Doc. 9) will be denied as the Court finds the appeal to be not taken in good faith. See
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 6) is denied.

2.

The motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal (Doc. 7) is granted.

3.

The motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) is denied.

4.

No further motions for reconsideration shall be filed.

Dated this 12th day of July, 2011.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-