United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2019

Stuart v. Shinn

Stuart v. Shinn
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided December 26, 2019
Stuart v. Shinn

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 John C Stuart, No. CV-19-02540-PHX-GMS (ESW) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 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).

27 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 || 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.

4|| 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.’’).

6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Second Motion for Sanctions (Rule 11(b) || &(c), Fed. R. Civ. Proc.)” (Doc. 31).

9 Dated this 20th day of December, 2019.

10 .

Cay) dot 12 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 3 United States Magistrate Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.