UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 29, 2012
SPENCER E. BERRY,
MIKE MCDONALD, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION
REQUESTING SANCTIONS AGAINST ) RESPONDENT (DOC. 21)
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 May 31, 2012 (doc. 4). Pending before the Court is Petitioner's motion requesting sanctions against Respondent pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 because Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed to file a timely answer to the petition, which was filed on October 12, 2012. No opposition to the motion has been filed.
Reference to the Court's docket shows that on June 5, 2012, Respondent was ordered to file a response to the petition in sixty days. On August 3, 2012, Respondent timely sought a thirty-day extension of time within which to file the answer, which was granted on August 7, 2012. On September 4, 2012, Respondent again requested a thirty-day extension of time, which was granted on September 5, 2012. Although Petitioner filed opposition to the second request for an extension of time, Respondent showed good cause for the extension, which was not unusual in length. On October 4, 2012, Respondent filed a timely answer to the petition.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for imposition of sanctions against Respondent is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.