Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00901/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00901-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Spencer E. Berry
Petitioner
McDonald
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

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), the parties have 

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 their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

SPENCER E. BERRY,

 Petitioner,

v.

MIKE McDONALD,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00901-BAM-HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE 

A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER NO LATER THAN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO RESPONDENT 

CONCERNING NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF 

TIME

ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO FILE 

A SUPPLEMENTAL TRAVERSE NO LATER 

THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL 

ANSWER

Case 1:12-cv-00901-BAM Document 28 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 3
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

May 31 and June 11, 2012, and on behalf of Respondent on September 

26, 2012.

Pending before the Court is the Petitioner’s petition for writ 

of habeas corpus. Review of the answer and amended answer filed by 

Respondent in this proceeding shows that Respondent appears to have 

completely failed to answer Petitioner’s numerous claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and 

Fourteenth Amendments. 

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the 

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both 

the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 

248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 

Cir. 1992). The Court exercises its discretion to direct the filing 

of a supplemental answer on the part of Respondent in order to avoid 

any further delay and to facilitate the efficient use of the 

resources of the parties and the Court. Respondent shall file a 

supplemental answer within 30 days of the date of service of this 

order. 

However, in view of the fact that Respondent has already been 

given four months to file the answer, the state court record has 

already been filed, and further in view of the passage of time in 

this proceeding, Respondent is INFORMED that any further request for 

an extension of time should be avoided and would be granted only on 

the basis of strict necessity or emergency. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-00901-BAM Document 28 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Petitioner may FILE a supplemental traverse no later than 

thirty (30) days after the date of service of the supplemental 

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00901-BAM Document 28 Filed 10/27/14 Page 3 of 3