Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_20-cv-08106/USCOURTS-azd-3_20-cv-08106-1/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

JDDL

WO JL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Hector Salcido,

Petitioner, 

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV 20-08106-PCT-JAT (JZB)

ORDER

I. Procedural History

On May 8, 2020, Petitioner David Hector Salcido, who is confined in the Central 

Arizona Correctional Facility in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

In a May 19, 2020 Order, the Court denied the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, 

dismissed the Petition with leave to amend because Petitioner had not used the courtapproved form for filing a habeas petition, and gave Petitioner 30 days to pay the filing fee 

or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and to file an amended petition. The 

same day, Petitioner filed a Motion to Secure Habeas Petition Copy, which the Court 

granted in a May 26, 2020 Order.

On June 1, 2020, Petitioner filed a Motion to Clarify and Amend Original Motion 

for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) and an Omnibus Motion (Doc. 8).

. . . . 

. . . .

Case 3:20-cv-08106-JAT--JZB Document 10 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 5
- 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

JDDL

II. Pending Motions

A. Motion to Clarify and Amend

In his Motion to Clarify and Amend, Petitioner presents additional arguments in 

support of his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The Court will construe the Motion to 

Clarify and Amend as a motion for reconsideration.1

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 

reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be 

used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought 

through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above 

the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion 

for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 

time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for 

reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a 

motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. 

Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 

reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 

1988).

As the Court informed Petitioner in the May 19, 2020 Order, “[i]ndigent state 

prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the 

circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent 

1

In his Omnibus Motion, Petitioner explains that when he wrote the Motion to 

Clarify and Amend, he had not received the Court’s May 19, 2020 Order denying his 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel and asks the Court to consider the Motion to Clarify 

and Amendment as a motion for reconsideration.

Case 3:20-cv-08106-JAT--JZB Document 10 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 5
- 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

JDDL

due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis 

added). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the interests of justice 

so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

Petitioner asserts that appointment of counsel is mandatory when an evidentiary 

hearing is ordered and where counsel is necessary for effective discovery. At this time, 

however, there is no petition pending, because the Court dismissed the original Petition 

with leave to amend. Furthermore, a habeas petitioner is not necessarily entitled to either 

discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 

provides, “A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery. If necessary for 

effective discovery, the judge must appoint an attorney for a petitioner who qualifies to 

have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.” Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases provides, “If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must review the answer, 

any transcripts and records of state-court proceedings, and any materials submitted under 

Rule 7 to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.” “If an evidentiary 

hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an attorney to represent a petitioner who 

qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.” Id. (emphasis added).

Until the Court has directed Respondents to answer a petition or amended petition, 

any request for discovery or an evidentiary hearing is premature, and appointment of 

counsel is therefore unnecessary at this stage. The Court informed Petitioner in the May 

19, 2020 Order that if, at a later date, the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is 

required, counsel will be appointed in accordance with Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Proceedings.

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the May 

19, 2020 Order, and Petitioner’s Motion to Clarify and Amend. The Court finds no basis 

to reconsider its decision. Petitioner has simply raised arguments that he could have raised 

in his Motion for Appointment of Counsel and asks the Court to “rethink” what the Court 

has already thought through. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner’s request for 

Case 3:20-cv-08106-JAT--JZB Document 10 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 5
- 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

JDDL

reconsideration.

B. Omnibus Motion

In his Omnibus Motion, Petitioner asserts that a receipt sent from the Court to 

Petitioner demonstrates that he paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court has confirmed that 

Petitioner paid the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will vacate the portion of the May 

19, 2020 Order directing Petitioner to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis. 

Petitioner also states in the Omnibus Motion that he is “willing” to comply with the 

Court’s Order to file an amended petition using the court-approved form, but asserts that 

when he filed his original Petition, he did not send enough copies of the Petition, and he 

did not receive a stamped copy of the Petition. To the extent that Petitioner seeks guidance 

regarding the number of copies he must submit to receive a return copy, the Court informed 

Petitioner of those requirements in the May 19, 2020 Order. Petitioner also asks the Court 

for a 30-day extension of time to file an amended petition. The Court will grant Petitioner’s 

request for an extension of time. Petitioner shall have 30 days from the filing date of this 

Order to file an amended petition in compliance with the May 19, 2020 Order. To the 

extent that Petitioner seeks any other relief, it will be denied.

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion 

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal 

of this action.

B. Possible Dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of the May 19, 2020 Order 

and this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further 

notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court 

may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

Case 3:20-cv-08106-JAT--JZB Document 10 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

JDDL

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Motion to Clarify and Amend Original Motion for Appointment 

of Counsel (Doc. 7) is construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of 

Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. So construed, the Motion is denied.

(2) Petitioner’s Omnibus Motion (Doc. 8) is granted to the extent that the Court 

will vacate the portion of the May 19, 2020 Order directing Petitioner to pay the filing fee 

or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Motion is granted as to 

Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file an amended petition. In all other 

respects, the Motion is denied.

(3) Petitioner has 30 days from the filing date of this Order to file an amended 

petition in compliance with the May 19, 2020 Order.

(4) If Petitioner fails to file an amended petition within 30 days, the Clerk of 

Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without 

further notice to Petitioner and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot.

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-08106-JAT--JZB Document 10 Filed 06/09/20 Page 5 of 5