Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01364/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01364-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Davis
Respondent
Essie Patrick-Bell
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESSIE PATRICK-BELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

RON DAVIS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—01364-SKO-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO ADD A PAGE TO HER

PREVIOUSLY FILED TRAVERSE (DOCS.

22, 21)

ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER’S

CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED

DOCUMENT FROM THE DOCKET 

(DOC. 22, pages 3-6) 

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 August 31, 2012 (doc. 5).

In the petition, Petitioner challenges her sentence; an

answer has been filed, and Petitioner filed a traverse on March

19, 2013. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s request,

1

Case 1:12-cv-01364-SKO Document 23 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 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

filed on March 21, 2013, to include an additional page in her

previously filed traverse.

I. Order Granting Petitioner’s Request 

Review of the request shows that the page that Petitioner

seeks to add to the traverse is identical to the last page of

Petitioner’s previously filed traverse, except that the newly

offered page bears an original signature, whereas the initially

filed traverse was unsigned.

Petitioner’s request to add the additional page bearing the

original signature is GRANTED.

II. Order Striking Impertinent Matter 

Attached to the request regarding the traverse are a twopage letter from Petitioner to the Magistrate Judge and a mental

health individual therapy “chrono.” The matters are not relevant

to Petitioner’s sentencing claims.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides as follows:

The Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient

defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,

or scandalous matter. The court may act:

1) on its own; or

2) on motion made by a party either before

responding to the pleading or, if a response

is not allowed, within 21 days after being 

served with the pleading.

A court may strike a document that does not conform to the formal

requirements of the pertinent rules of court. Transamerican

Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 143

F.R.D. 189, 191 (N.D. Ill. 1992). The authorized pleadings in a

habeas corpus proceeding are the petition, the answer or any

authorized motion filed in response to the petition, and any

2

Case 1:12-cv-01364-SKO Document 23 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 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

reply thereto. Rules 1-5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules). 

Here, the correspondence and related document (doc. 22,

pages 3-5) do not pertain to the argument in the traverse or the

issues in the case; thus, they are immaterial and impertinent.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the correspondence and the

document concerning Petitioner’s mental health as of December

2012 (doc. 22, pages 3-5) be STRICKEN from the docket as

inappropriately filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:12-cv-01364-SKO Document 23 Filed 03/29/13 Page 3 of 3