Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00901/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00901-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPENCER E. BERRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

MIKE McDONALD, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00901-BAM-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

REQUESTING SANCTIONS AGAINST

RESPONDENT (DOC. 21)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case,

including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in

a signed writing filed by Petitioner on May 31, 2012 (doc. 4). 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion requesting

sanctions against Respondent pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11

because Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed to file a

timely answer to the petition, which was filed on October 12,

1

Case 1:12-cv-00901-BAM Document 23 Filed 10/29/12 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

2012. No opposition to the motion has been filed.

Reference to the Court’s docket shows that on June 5, 2012,

Respondent was ordered to file a response to the petition in

sixty days. On August 3, 2012, Respondent timely sought a

thirty-day extension of time within which to file the answer,

which was granted on August 7, 2012. On September 4, 2012,

Respondent again requested a thirty-day extension of time, which

was granted on September 5, 2012. Although Petitioner filed

opposition to the second request for an extension of time,

Respondent showed good cause for the extension, which was not

unusual in length. On October 4, 2012, Respondent filed a timely

answer to the petition.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion

for imposition of sanctions against Respondent is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 29, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00901-BAM Document 23 Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 2