Stuart v. Shinn

Opinion

WO

John C Stuart, No. CV-19-02540-PHX-GMS (ESW)

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s “Second Motion for Sanctions (Rule 11(b) & (c), Fed. R. Civ. Proc.)” (Doc. 31). Respondents concede that their Certificates of Service attached to certain filings contained an incorrect address for Petitioner. (Doc. 36 at 3-4). Petitioner contends that “the incorrect addresses were just a ruse & that Respondents did not send the filings to Petitioner, and accordingly premeditatedly in a concerted action committed fraud on this Court . . . .” (Doc. 37 at 7). Petitioner requests that the Court strike all of Respondents’ filings as a sanction. (Doc. 37-1 at 2) (stating that the Court “should issue the appropriate & proportionate remedy of striking ALL of Respondents’ filings, thereby leaving Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus unanswered, undenied, not argued against, and thereby the requested relief stipulated to & agree to by both [ALL] parties . . . .”) (emphasis in original). The Court finds no evidence suggesting that the incorrect addresses in Respondents’ Certificates of Service were anything other than a minor clerical error. Petitioner does not 1 dispute that he has received copies of the filings. The Court does not find that Petitioner has been prejudiced by Respondents’ clerical error. Moreover, even if the Court were to strike all of Respondents’ filings, Petitioner would not be entitled to a default judgment. See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment.’’). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Second Motion for Sanctions (Rule 11(b) &(c), Fed. R. Civ. Proc.)” (Doc. 31). Dated this 20th day of December, 2019. . Cay) dot Honorable Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge

_2-