Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016-25/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

1

 Petitioner notes in his motion that his “Reply to Motion to Amend and/or

Supplement and Motion to Stay” filed December 23, 2013, requested in a footnote that he

be exempted from Local Rule Civil 15.1(a). It is well settled that parties “cannot raise a new

issue for the first time in their reply briefs.” State of Nev. v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545, 1560

(9th Cir. 1990). More critically, requests for suspension of rules governing the form and

filing of pleadings are not properly raised either in a reply brief or a footnote, but must be

filed before or simultaneous with the proposed pleading. See, e.g., D. Ariz. LR Civ 7.2(c)

(limiting length of motions and responsive briefs “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the

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 is Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification

of the Court’s order of January 23, 2014, dismissing his motion to amend without prejudice.

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion as a request for suspension of Local Rule Civil

15.1(a), which provides that a party moving to amend shall attach the proposed amended

pleading as an exhibit to the motion and shall indicate in what respect the proposed amended

pleading differs from that which it amends.1

 

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 227 Filed 01/30/14 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

Court”); Ninth Circuit Rule 32–2 (motions to exceed page limitation shall be filed “on or

before” brief’s due date).

- 2 -

Because Petitioner has withdrawn numerous claims and elected not to brief the merits

of some of the claims raised in his first amended petition, the Court finds good cause to

suspend one aspect of Local Rule 15.1(a). See D. Ariz. LR Civ 83.6 (providing that local

rules may be suspended for good cause shown). Specifically, Petitioner need not file a

proposed second amended petition that includes all of his previously raised claims. Rather,

Petitioner shall attach as an exhibit to his motion to amend a proposed amended petition that

sets forth only those new claims for which he seeks amendment. The claims shall be

numbered consecutively to those raised in the first amended petition (Doc. 28).

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that, construed as a motion for suspension from Local Rule Civil

15.1(a), Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration or Clarification (Doc. 226) is

GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein.

DATED this 29th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 227 Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 2