Tabari v. Kane

Filing 33

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's order denying Petitioner's motion to strike 29 is affirmed. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/27/11. (DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 No. CV-10-2419-PHX-DGC Jareer Tabari, 10 Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 ORDER Katrina S. Kane, Field Officer Director, Detention and Removal Operations, Florence Detention Center, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respondent. Petitioner commenced this action on by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. Respondent filed a response in opposition. Doc. 16. In an order dated May 3, 2011 (Doc. 29), Magistrate Judge Anderson denied Petitioner’s motion to strike Respondent’s “answer” (Doc. 18). Petitioner has filed an objection, asking the Court to vacate that order, strike Respondent’s answer, and direct Respondent to file an answer that complies with Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 30. “A district judge may reconsider a magistrate’s order in a pretrial matter if that order is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)); see Grimes v. City & County of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The district court shall defer to the magistrate’s orders unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 72(b)). Judge Anderson concluded that the response in opposition to the habeas petition (Doc. 16) complies with the rules governing habeas corpus cases, that it is not otherwise prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any Local Rule, and that it need not comply with Rule 8(b). None of those conclusions is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Nor did Judge Anderson abuse his discretion in declining to require Respondent to file an answer pursuant to Rule 8(b). IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Petitioner’s motion to strike (Doc. 29) is affirmed. Dated this 27th day of June, 2011. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?