Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00149/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00149-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor O’Neil Dema, as Natural Father of 

Child H.R.D. (D.O.B. 1997), 

Petitioners, 

vs. 

Arizona State Department of Economic 

Security, et al., 

Respondents. 

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

ORDER 

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

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

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

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

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

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

to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 9). 

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:11-cv-00149-DGC--LOA Document 12 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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. 

Case 2:11-cv-00149-DGC--LOA Document 12 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 2