Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02348/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02348-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Barnes, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2348-PHX-FJM (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a Motion for Information on Respondents' Answer (Doc. #27) and

a Motion to Strike Sentence from Supplemental Answer (Doc. #28). Regarding the first

motion, Petitioner asks for the status of the supplemental answer that the court ordered

Respondents to file by July 31, 2006. Due to an error in the electronic notification of the

court's order, Respondents were not aware of the order to submit a supplemental answer until

after the deadline. The court accepted the supplemental answer when it was filed on August

9, 2006. Having provided Petitioner with the information he seeks, the first motion will be

granted.

Regarding the second motion, Petitioner requests that a sentence in the supplemental

answer be stricken. He claims that Respondents' assertion on page 5 of their supplemental

answer that he furnished a rifle to the gang members is inaccurate. Petitioner contends that

at his change of plea hearing he pled guilty to agreeing to furnish the weapon but not actually

furnishing it. The change of plea reflects that Petitioner agreed to furnish a rifle to gang

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 29 Filed 08/24/06 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

- 2 -

members. However, the distinction had no bearing on the court's Report and

Recommendation to the District Judge. Moreover, Respondent's minor inaccuracy when

paraphrasing the change of plea proceeding, especially when they attached a transcript of the

proceeding, is not a basis to strike the sentence from their supplemental answer. Petitioner's

second motion will therefore be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Petitioner's Motion for Information on Respondents' Answer (Doc. #27) is

granted; and 

That Petitioner's Motion to Strike Sentence from Supplemental Answer (Doc. #28)

is denied.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02348-FJM Document 29 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2