Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sandoval v. Martel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 1, 2010

HERMAN GARCIA SANDOVAL, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE MARTEL, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John L. Weinberg United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO LODGE STATE COURT RECORD AND NOTICE OF SANCTIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By Order filed March 1, 2010, respondent was directed to file an answer to the second amended petition within forty-five days from the date petitioner filed his amended petition. (See Docket 37 at 2.) Petitioner timely filed his second amended petition on March 29, 2010. (See Dkt. 38.) Counsel for respondent failed to file a response within the forty-five day period provided by this Court's Order.

After directing counsel to file an answer and to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with this Court's March 1, 2010 Order, counsel for respondent filed an answer on the fourteenth day of this Court's fourteen-day deadline. (See Dkt. 40 and 41.) He failed, however, to lodge the state court record with the answer.

The Court finds such failure inexcusable. Counsel for respondent has been directed repeatedly to comply with this Court's rules and orders. In fact, he was specifically directed to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules governing Section 2254 Cases in the Court's February 26, 2010, Order. (See Dkt. 37.) Counsel for respondent went so far as to specifically acknowledge the relevance of the state court's record in the answer by citing it and stating that relevant transcripts would be filed with the Answer. (See Dkt. 41 at 3.) No such documents have been lodged with the court, in violation of Rule 5, above, and Local Rule 190(f). See Local Rule 190(f) (requiring state court habeas transcripts, if filed in paper, be filed concurrently with the filing of a Notice of Filing in Paper Format).

Counsel for respondent's delays and failure to comply with this Court's rules and orders has prevented this Court from expeditiously addressing the merits of the second amended petition. Counsel for respondent is therefore apprised that failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the imposition of monetary and/or other sanctions. See Local Rule 110 ("Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."). No further admonitions will be given.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before Wednesday, June 7, 2010, counsel for respondent shall file all relevant portions of the Reporter's Transcript and Clerk's Transcript in compliance with this Court's Order and all federal and local rules.

20100701

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.