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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?