United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court are a number of motions filed by pro se
habeas petitioner Gildardo Gonzales Inzunza
(“Petitioner”), which the Court rules on as set
Petitioner's “Notice of Indigency” (Doc.
“Notice of Indigency” (Doc. 13 at 2-3),
Petitioner requests that the Court provide him with
“the Rules as to what [Petitioner] can or cannot
request” in the following motions, along with copies of
any Court-approved forms for the motions:
i. Motions to amend the Petition;
ii. Motions to supplement or expand the record;
iii. Motion for appointment of counsel;
iv. Motion for discovery;
v. Motion for evidentiary hearing;
vi. Motion to stay;
vii. Motion requesting orders.
(Id. at 2-3). Petitioner also requests a
Court-approved form for a Reply, if available. (Id.
Court does not have forms available for motions, responses,
or replies. Regarding Petitioner's request for relevant
rules, Petitioner is directed to the (i) Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; (ii) the Local Rules of Civil Procedure; and
(iii) the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll.
§ 2254. The Court does not provide litigants with
legal advice as to how to draft motions or other filings.
See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir.
2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as a
party's lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”);
Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)
(“[F]ederal district judges have no obligation to act
as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”)
(italics in original).
Petitioner's Notice (Doc. 13 at 3) indicates that he does
not have a copy of “any pretrial motions, Trial
Transcripts, minute entries, and any post trial motions, if
any, by Appeal Attorney or Post Conviction Attorney . . .
.” On July 13, 2016, Respondents provided copies of
those documents to Petitioner. (Doc. 19). The issue is
therefore deemed moot.
above reasons, the Court will deny the requests contained in
Petitioner's “Notice of Indigency” (Doc. 13).
Petitioner's “Motion for Discovery as Provided by
Rule 26 Federal Rule's [sic] of Civil Procedure”
Application of the Miscarriage of Justice Exception to
Procedurally Defaulted and Time-Barred Claims
have filed a Limited Answer (Doc. 10) asserting that
Petitioner's habeas claims are not only untimely, ...