Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00884/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00884-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

G. MEMO VERA,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00884-NODJ-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS 

(ECF Nos. 6, 15)

On June 9, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 

ongoing Kern County Superior Court criminal proceedings. (ECF No. 1.) On October 3, 2023, 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) On January 18, 2024,1the Court issued 

findings and recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted and the 

petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. (ECF No. 17.)

On July 17, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for sanctions, citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Rule 

502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF 

No. 6.) In the motion, Petitioner complains of being referred to a psychologist in his state 

criminal proceedings who allegedly previously fabricated a finding of incompetence. Petitioner 

alleges that because Petitioner declined to speak with the psychologist, the psychologist falsely 

speculated that Petitioner was paranoid and unable to represent himself. (Id.) As the basis of the 

1 The findings and recommendation was signed on January 17, 2024, but not docketed until January 18, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 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

motion are actions of a party not before this Court and over whom this Court does not have 

jurisdiction, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted and the motion should be denied.

On December 28, 2023, Petitioner filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 

15.) Therein, Petitioner appears to request Rule 11 sanctions based on Respondent’s “disputed 

allegations.” (ECF No. 15 at 1.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions are justified if a 

party or their attorney submits a pleading to the court which is submitted for an improper 

purpose, is frivolous, has no evidentiary support or not warranted by the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 11(c). A party moving for Rule 11 sanctions bears the burden to show why sanctions are 

justified. See Tom Growney Equip., v. Shelley Irr. Dev., Inc., 834 F.2d 833, 837 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The Ninth Circuit has stated that Rule 11 sanctions are “an extraordinary remedy, one to be 

exercised with extreme caution.” Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 

1345 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, as set forth in the findings and recommendation, (ECF No. 17), the 

Court has found that Respondent’s argument in the motion to dismiss is persuasive and that 

dismissal is warranted based on failure to exhaust. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has 

not satisfied his burden of showing why sanctions are justified and the motion should be denied.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motions for sanctions (ECF 

Nos. 6, 15) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00884-KES-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 2