Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02419/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02419-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jareer Tabari, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Katrina S. Kane, Field Officer Director, 

Detention and Removal Operations, 

Florence Detention Center, 

Respondent.

No. CV-10-2419-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Petitioner commenced this action on by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. Respondent filed a response in opposition. 

Doc. 16. 

 In an order dated May 3, 2011 (Doc. 29), Magistrate Judge Anderson denied 

Petitioner’s motion to strike Respondent’s “answer” (Doc. 18). Petitioner has filed an 

objection, asking the Court to vacate that order, strike Respondent’s answer, and direct 

Respondent to file an answer that complies with Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Doc. 30. 

 “A district judge may reconsider a magistrate’s order in a pretrial matter if that 

order is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 

1041 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)); see Grimes v. City & County of 

S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The district court shall defer to the magistrate’s 

orders unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 2:10-cv-02419-DGC-LOA Document 33 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

72(b)). Judge Anderson concluded that the response in opposition to the habeas petition 

(Doc. 16) complies with the rules governing habeas corpus cases, that it is not otherwise 

prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any Local Rule, and that it need not 

comply with Rule 8(b). None of those conclusions is clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law. Nor did Judge Anderson abuse his discretion in declining to require Respondent to 

file an answer pursuant to Rule 8(b). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Petitioner’s motion 

to strike (Doc. 29) is affirmed. 

 Dated this 27th day of June, 2011. 

 

Case 2:10-cv-02419-DGC-LOA Document 33 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 2