Eline v. Wetzel

Filing 54

ORDER denying 51 Motion for Sanctions. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:1.Mr. Elines Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 51) is DENIED without prejudice.2.Within ten (10) days of this Order, the Respondents shall properly serve Petitioner with a copy of the Transcript from his PCRA hearing.3.Respondents shall file with the Court a copy of their Certificate of Service demonstrating their compliance with this Order. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 11/9/12 (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAUL H. ELINE,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-11-0767
(Judge Caputo)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Presently before the Court is Mr. Eline’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 51)
based on Respondents’ failure to timely serve him with a copy of their response to
his habeas petition or a copy of the transcript from his state court collateral relief
proceedings. As relief, Mr. Eline seeks the Court to impose a monetary sanction on
Respondents as a deterrent to similar dilatory practices in the future.
On June 23, 2011, the Court issued an order directing Respondents to
respond to Mr. Eline’s habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 9.) After seeking an enlargement of time to file a response, the Schuylkill
County District Attorney filed a timely response to the petition for writ of habeas
corpus on August 11, 2011. (Doc. 19.) On March 26, 2012, Petition filed a
Traverse and Objections to the Respondents’ answer to his habeas petition and
supporting memorandum of law. (Docs. 31 and 32.) He alleges his traverse shortly
after receiving a copy of Respondents’ response to the petition, several months after
it was filed with the Court. (Doc. 51.) Without the ability to determine the validity of

these events, the Court accepts Mr. Eline’s Traverse as timely filed. Thus, he has
not been prejudiced by these alleged events. Next, Mr. Eline asserts that the
Respondents have failed to comply with the Court’s June 11, 2012 Order directing
them to serve him with a copy of the transcript from his state trial court PCRA
proceedings.1 (Id.) Our Order did require Respondents to file a copy of their
Certificate of Service with the Court demonstrating their compliance with the Order.
(Doc. 40.) To date, Respondents have not filed the requested Certificate of Service
demonstrating their service of the PCRA transcript on Mr. Eline. Notably, Mr. Eline
has received multiple copies of the docket in this case since Respondents filed the
PCRA transcript with the Court, and has only recently filed a motion for sanctions
based on his lack of receipt of this document. Based on these facts, the Court will
deny his motion for sanctions without prejudice. The Court will again direct
Respondents to fulfill their obligations under our June Order. If Respondents fail to
adhere to the Court’s order on this occasion, Mr. Eline may renew his motion for
sanctions.
ACCORDINGLY, THIS

9th

DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Mr. Eline’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 51) is DENIED
without prejudice.

2.

Within ten (10) days of this Order, the Respondents shall
properly serve Petitioner with a copy of the Transcript
from his PCRA hearing.

1

Respondents filed a copy of the PCRA transcript with the Court on April 17, 2012.
See Doc. 36. No certificate of service was attached to that filing.

-2-

3.

Respondents shall file with the Court a copy of their
Certificate of Service demonstrating their compliance
with this Order.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge

-3-