Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04481/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04481-1/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

David Luis Martinez,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn, Director of the Arizona 

Department of Corrections; and Mark 

Brnovich, Attorney General of the State of 

Arizona,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-04481-PHX-DGC (ESW)

ORDER 

Petitioner David Martinez is confined in Arizona state prison. He filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docs. 1, 2. Magistrate Judge Eileen 

Willett has issued a report recommending that the petition be denied (“R&R”). Doc. 17.

Petitioner has filed a motion to amend the petition. Doc. 21. For reasons stated below, the 

Court will deny the motion to amend and give Petitioner until September 25, 2020 to file 

objections to the R&R.

I. Background.

In February 2017, Petitioner pled guilty in state court to three counts of attempted 

sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3553. Doc. 13-1 at 8-13. He 

was sentenced to nine years in prison, followed by lifetime probation. Id. at 14-33. His 

petitions for post-conviction relief were denied. Id. at 33-143.

Case 2:19-cv-04481-DGC Document 23 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

Petitioner filed the present habeas petition in June 2019. Docs. 1, 2. The petition 

asserts three grounds for relief: (1) § 13-3553 is unconstitutional because it shifts the 

burden of proof from the state to the defendant, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and 

(3) insufficient indictment. Docs. 1 at 6-7, 2 at 3-6. Respondents filed an answer, to which 

Petitioner replied. Docs. 13, 14.

Judge Willett issued her R&R on July 6, 2020. Doc. 17. Petitioner filed an 

interlocutory appeal four days later. Doc. 18; see Doc. 19 (Case No. 20-16346). On 

July 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Docs. 20, 

22-1. The mandate issued August 14, 2020. Doc. 22.

II. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 21).

A federal habeas petition “may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules

of procedure applicable to civil actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Thus, a petition may be 

amended as a matter of course 21 days after service or 21 days after service of a responsive 

pleading, whichever is later. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(1). Because Respondents have filed an 

answer and the deadline for amending as a matter of course has passed, Petitioner may 

amend “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a)(2). Petitioner has provided no written consent from Respondents allowing 

amendment.

Leave to amend should be given freely when justice so requires, see id., but may be 

denied if the court finds “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of 

amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The decision whether to grant 

leave “is within the discretion of the District Court.” Id.

The Court will deny Petitioner leave to amend based on undue delay, prejudice to 

Respondents, and failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Petitioner filed his motion to amend on August 6, 2020, eight months after Respondents 

had devoted considerable resources responding to the petition and one month after Judge 

Case 2:19-cv-04481-DGC Document 23 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Willett issued her R&R on the petition. See Docs. 13, 17, 21. Further, Petitioner was 

required to attach a proposed amended petition to his motion, but did not do so. See LRCiv 

15.1(a) (“A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the 

proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion, which must indicate in what 

respect it differs from the pleading which it amends[.]”); see also Eldridge v. Schroeder, 

No. CV-14-01325-PHX-DGC-ESW, 2016 WL 354868, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2016) 

(explaining that a “district court’s local rules are not petty requirements, but have ‘the force 

of law’”) (quoting Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 191 (2010)); Andreozzi v. United 

States Parole Comm’n, No. CV-16-00669-PHX-DGC, 2017 WL 467973, at *4 (D. Ariz. 

Feb. 3, 2017) (“[C]ourts in this district ‘routinely deny motions for leave to amend for 

failure to comply with LRCiv 15.1(a),’ and it is well within their discretion to do so.”) 

(citations omitted); Young v. Nooth, 539 Fed. App’x. 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Young leave to amend his complaint because 

Young failed to attach a proposed amended complaint as required by local rule.”). 

Additionally, Petitioner’s motion does not purport to amend any of the three grounds for 

relief asserted in the petition, but instead seeks to add various “exhibits” containing “points 

and authorities” in support of the petition. See Doc. 21 at 5-26. Petitioner’s motion and 

the proposed exhibits do not make clear how Petitioner intends to amend his petition.

The Court will exercise its discretion and deny Petitioner’s motion to amend. See 

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Andreozzi, 2017 WL 467973, at *5 (finding that denial of a motion 

to amend “was justified on the bases of undue delay, prejudice to Respondent, and failure 

to comply with the Local Rules”); Earixson v. Walker, No. CIV. 02-2543-PCT-ROS, 2006 

WL 3499973, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2006) (denying leave to amend where the petitioner 

had “no proposed pleading before the [c]ourt, but only a narrative motion to amend[,]” and 

the court could not “determine [p]etitioner’s intentions or address a nonexistent 

amended/supplemental petition”); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)

(“We have held that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to 

amend where the movant presents no new facts but only new theories and provides no 

Case 2:19-cv-04481-DGC Document 23 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

satisfactory explanation for his failure to fully develop his contentions originally.”) (citing 

Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 374 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Petitioner shall have until September 25, 2020 to file objections to the R&R. 

Respondents shall file a response to any objections by October 9, 2020, and Petitioner may 

file a reply by October 23, 2020. Petitioner is advised that if he does not file objections to 

the R&R, the Court will adopt the R&R and terminate this litigation.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion to amend his habeas petition (Doc. 21) is denied.

2. Petitioner shall have until September 25, 2020 to file objections to the R&R 

(Doc. 17). Respondents shall file a response to any objections by October 9, 2020. 

Petitioner may file a reply by October 23, 2020.

Dated this 4th day of September, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-04481-DGC Document 23 Filed 09/04/20 Page 4 of 4