Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01380-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Castro
Respondent
Palixath Xabandith
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PALIXATH XABANDITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-06-1380 GEB GGH P

vs.

ROY CASTRO, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel on a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed October 24, 2007, respondent

was given five days to file an answer or motion to dismiss and to show cause in writing why

sanctions should not be imposed for failing to file a timely response to the petition, which was

due by August 30, 2007. On October 26, 2007, in requesting an extension of time to file a

responsive pleading, petitioner’s counsel declared under penalty of perjury that she was not

designated as counsel for respondent for CM/ECF purposes at the time of the filing of the joint

scheduling report in September, 2006, but failed to realize the error due to a very busy caseload. 

The failure to be added as counsel led to respondent’s counsel never having been served with the

documents filed in this matter.

Respondent was granted an extension of time to file a responsive pleading until

Case 2:06-cv-01380-ATG Document 35 Filed 11/20/07 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

2

November 26, 2007, by order filed on October 31, 2007, for good cause shown. 

Respondent then filed a motion to dismiss on November 5, 2007, as well as a

(further) response to the show cause order on November 9, 2007, re-emphasizing that the lack of

a timely response was wholly unintentional and arose due to an administrative error in counsel’s

office not having been added as respondent’s counsel for service at the appropriate time in the

court’s electronic filing system. The court finds that under these circumstances no sanctions

should be imposed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by filings dated October 26, 2007;

November 5, 2007; and November 9, 2007, respondent has sufficiently discharged the October

24, 2007, show cause order; and no sanctions will be imposed for the initial failure to file a

timely responsive pleading. 

DATED: 11/20/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

xaba1380.dsc

Case 2:06-cv-01380-ATG Document 35 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 2