Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02033/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02033-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

07cv2033

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIMITRI VALERYEVICH

TATARINOV,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN

DIEGO; OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

COUNSEL, DEPT. OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; U.S. ATTORNEY,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT; ICE

DETENTION & REMOVAL UNIT,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv2033-L(NLS)

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT

FROM THE RECORD

On December 13, 2007, Respondent Superior Court of the State of California, County of

San Diego (“State”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Superior Court of the State of California (doc.

no. 41). For the reasons which follow, the State’s motion is rejected and STRICKEN FROM

THE RECORD..

This is the State’s third motion to dismiss. The State’s initial motion to dismiss was

denied as moot on December 4, 2007 because a new petition had been filed. In the order

denying the motion, the court admonished the state: “Respondent’s motion did not comply with

the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7.1 . . .. Should Respondent file any motions in the future,

Case 3:07-cv-02033-L-NLS Document 42 Filed 12/14/07 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 07cv2033

such motions must comply with all applicable Local Rules or Electronic Case Filing

Administrative Policies and Procedures. Counsel is advised that any further failure to comply

may lead to penalties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1.” (Order filed Dec. 4, 2007 (emphasis

added).)

Nevertheless, on December 7, 2007, the State filed another motion to dismiss, again

failing to comply with local rules. Although the motion was denied on substantive grounds, the

court again admonished the State: “As before, the State’s renewed motion fails to comply with

the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7.1 . . .. Counsel is again advised that any further failure

to comply may lead to penalties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1.” (Order filed Dec. 10, 2007

(emphasis added).)

On December 13, 2007, the State again filed a motion to dismiss, again failing to comply

with Civil Local Rule 7.1, accordingly the motion is rejected. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Upon any further failure by the State to comply with the applicable Local Rules,

the court will issue an order to show cause re: sanctions.

2. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to STRIKE FROM THE RECORD Motion to

Dismiss the Superior Court of the State of California filed December 13, 2007 (doc. no. 41).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-02033-L-NLS Document 42 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2