Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inzunza v. Hacker-Agnew

United States District Court, D. Arizona

November 7, 2016

Gildardo Gonzales Inzunza, Petitioner,
v.
Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.

         Pending 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 forth below.

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Petitioner's “Notice of Indigency” (Doc. 13)

         In his “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. at 3).

         The 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.[1] 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).

         Finally, 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.

         For the above reasons, the Court will deny the requests contained in Petitioner's “Notice of Indigency” (Doc. 13).

         B. Petitioner's “Motion for Discovery as Provided by Rule 26 Federal Rule's [sic] of Civil Procedure” (Doc. 14)

         1. Application of the Miscarriage of Justice Exception to Procedurally Defaulted and Time-Barred Claims

         Respondents have filed a Limited Answer (Doc. 10) asserting that Petitioner's habeas claims are not only untimely, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.