Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Ernest Valencia Gonzales, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-99-2016-PHX-SMM

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner’s Motions to (1) Amend and/or Supplement the

Memorandum on the Merits and (2) Stay Proceeding Pending Restoration. (Docs. 221, 222.)

Respondents oppose the motions. (Doc. 223.) Because the first motion was not filed in a

procedurally appropriate manner and the second is premature, the Court denies both without

prejudice.

Petitioner’s motion to amend and/or supplement is procedurally deficient for four

reasons. First, the motion is 63 pages in length and was filed without seeking leave to exceed

the 17-page limitation for motions. See D. Ariz. LR Civ 7.2(e)(1). Second, Petitioner may

not add new claims in this case by amending or supplementing his already-filed merits

memorandum. The Court expressly limited the scope of that memorandum to provide for

supplemental briefing only on the claims found by the Court to be procedurally appropriate

for merits review. (See Doc. 97 at 33–37; Doc. 208 at 7-10.) Moreover, it is not appropriate

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 225 Filed 01/23/14 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

to raise new claims outside of a habeas petition. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d

504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a traverse “is not the proper pleading to raise

additional grounds for relief”). Third, Petitioner must seek leave to amend, not to

supplement. The purpose of a supplemental pleading is to set forth facts pertaining to

occurrences or events that have occurred since the filing of the original pleading. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(d); 6A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1504 (3d

ed. 2004). Here, Petitioner has sought to “supplement” a merits memorandum with new

claims but the claims are not based on new events or occurrences; rather, they assert

ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged deficiencies that occurred at the time of

trial. Fourth, Petitioner has not complied with the local rules for amendment by motion by

attaching a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion and indicating

in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends. See D. Ariz. LRCiv 15.1(a). 

Because Petitioner’s motion to amend and/or supplement the merits memorandum is

procedurally improper, it will be denied without prejudice to refiling in a procedurally

appropriate manner. If Petitioner files a motion to amend to add new claims to his pending

habeas petition, he shall address in such motion (1) applicability of equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations, and (2) applicability of the relation-back doctrine to each claim.

The Court will also deny without prejudice the motion to stay proceedings pending

competency restoration. The motion argues that Petitioner is presently incompetent and

therefore cannot assist counsel in litigating the new claims identified in the motion to amend

and/or supplement. However, until the Court determines whether amendment to add the

claims is appropriate, it finds that any request for a stay based on Petitioner’s alleged

incompetency to assist in litigation of the amended claims is premature. Petitioner can refile

such motion when and if the Court grants leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and/or Supplement the

Memorandum on the Merits (Doc. 221) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 225 Filed 01/23/14 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending

Restoration (Doc. 222) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2014.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 225 Filed 01/23/14 Page 3 of 3