Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01873/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01873-1/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

PETE R. CORDERO,

Petitioner,

v.

HOREL, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1873 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AND GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO TUNC

[Docs. 16, 17]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 15, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in

the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 29, 2006,

the action was transferred to this Court, and the petition and transfer documents were received

and filed in this Court on December 26, 2006. 

On February 7, 2007, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the petition. On

April 5, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred. Petitioner filed a

motion for an extension of time to file an opposition, on April 23, 2007, and prior to the Court

ruling on the motion, Petitioner filed his opposition on May 10, 2007. (Court Doc. 11.)

Respondent filed a reply to Petitioner’s opposition on May 25, 2007. (Court Doc. 13.) 

On June 11, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a sur-reply to

Respondent’s reply, along with a motion for sanctions. (Court Docs. 15, 16.) On June 25, 2007,

Case 1:06-cv-01873-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 08/03/07 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

Petitioner filed the sur-reply. (Court Doc. 17.) Inasmuch as Petitioner filed his opposition on

June 25, 2007, and good cause having been presented to the Court, Petitioner's motion to extend

time to file a sur-reply to Respondent's reply is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

In his motion for sanctions, Petitioner requests that the Court impose sanctions upon

Respondent for violating the Court’s Order of February 7, 2007. Specifically, Petitioner

contends that Respondent filed its reply to his opposition beyond the time-frame as outlined in

the Court’s February 7, 2007. Petitioner is correct. The Court’s order of February 7, 2007,

directed that any reply to an opposition shall be filed within eight days, plus three days for

mailing. (Court Doc. 4, at 3: 19.) As outlined above, Petitioner filed his opposition on May 10,

2007; thus, a reply was due May 21, 2007, and Respondent did not file the instant reply until

May 25, 2007. 

Although the Court does have the inherent power to impose sanctions upon a party for

violating a Court’s order, the Court in its discretion will excuse the late filing in this instance. 

See Local Rule 11-110. The Court finds that Petitioner has not and will not be prejudiced by

Respondent’s filing of the reply four days beyond the deadline and Petitioner has now filed a surreply. Therefore, the Court will excuse the late filing. However, Respondent is cautioned that

future filings should comply with the Court’s deadlines or sanctions may be imposed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a sur-reply is GRANTED nunc

pro tunc; and

2. Petitioner’s motion for imposition of sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01873-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2