Little v. Haynes

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 AT SEATTLE 4 NICHOLAS STERLING LITTLE, 5 Petitioner, C20-1071 TSZ 6 v. MINUTE ORDER 7 RONALD HAYNES, 8 Respondent. 9 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 10 (1) Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability, docket no. 67, is 11 DENIED without prejudice as premature. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372–73 (9th Cir. 1993) (dismissing the appeal as premature, concluding “there is no question that 12 the magistrate judge’s order was not a final judgment”). 13 (2) Petitioner’s motion for sanctions and attorneys’ fees, docket no. 68, is DENIED with prejudice. Petitioner seeks sanctions and fees against Respondent 14 because, after Petitioner reviewed the documents that Respondent filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he “found substantial state documents missing” from the state 15 court record that was filed with this Court. Motion for Sanctions (docket no. 68 at 2). Petitioner, however, has failed to identify which documents were “missing” from the state 16 court record; and, as Judge Peterson has already concluded, “Respondent’s submission of the state court record complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 17 Section 2254 Cases.” Order (docket no. 58 at 5). 18 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to pro se Petitioner, all counsel of record, and Judge Peterson. 19 Dated this 14th day of June, 2021. 20 William M. McCool 21 Clerk 22 s/Gail Glass