Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01712/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01712-3/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

Omar Hernandez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1712-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Omar Hernandez, a state prisoner, commenced this action by filing a

petition for writ of habeas corpus in September 2007. Dkt. #1. On February 11, 2008, the

Court rejected in part the Magistrate Judge’s first report and recommendation (“R&R”).

Dkt. #14; see Dkt. #12. The Court agreed that Petitioner had filed his petition after

expiration of the one-year limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act (“AEDPA”), and that statutory tolling did not apply. Id. Contrary to the first R&R,

however, the Court concluded that equitable tolling was not foreclosed by a recent Supreme

Court decision. Id. On April 11, 2008, the Court entered an order accepting the Magistrate

Judge’s second R&R, which recommended that the petition be denied as untimely. Dkt. #18;

see Dkt. #15. Petitioner has filed motions for reconsideration. Dkt. ##22-23. The Court will

deny the motions.

This Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, “[a]bsent good cause

shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later than ten (10) days after the date

of the filing of the Order that is the subject of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). The Court’s

Case 2:07-cv-01712-DGC Document 24 Filed 01/16/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

order denying the petition was filed on April 11, 2008. Dkt. #18. The deadline for filing

motions for reconsideration from that order was therefore April 28, 2008. See LRCiv

7.2(g)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (e). Petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration on

October 27, 2008, nearly six months late. See Dkt. #23. The second motion for

reconsideration was filed nearly seven months late on November 20, 2008. See Dkt. #22.

Petitioner has not shown good cause for his delay. The Court accordingly will deny the

motions for reconsideration as untimely.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration (Dkt. ##22-23)

are denied. 

DATED this 16th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01712-DGC Document 24 Filed 01/16/09 Page 2 of 2