(HC) Griffin v. Price ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01507-DAD-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 13 v. (ECF No. 20) 14 BRANDON PRICE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 In the petition, Petitioner appears to challenge an August 15, 2008 Sacramento County 20 Superior Court determination that Petitioner is a “sexually violent predator” (“SVP”) within the 21 meaning of California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600, et seq., and his indefinite 22 confinement. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 6).1 On February 14, 2022, the undersigned issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial 24 remedies. (ECF No. 19). 25 On February 28, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant motion for sanctions pursuant to 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ECF No. 20). The motion is difficult to decipher. Petitioner 27 appears to seek sanctions for some type of delay and references a separate § 1983 action that was 1 | filed in this Court. (Id. at 1). Petitioner “request[s] a further status conference in 60 to 90 days, 2 | with a finding of good cause supporting the continuances.” (ECF No. 20 at 6). 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions are justified if a party or their attorney 4 | submits a pleading to the court which is submitted for an improper purpose, is frivolous, has no 5 | evidentiary support or not warranted by the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). A party moving for 6 | Rule 11 sanctions bears the burden to show why sanctions are justified. See Tom Growney 7 | Equip., v. Shelley Irr. Dev., Inc., 834 F.2d 833, 837 (9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit has stated 8 | that Rule 11 sanctions are “an extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” 9 | Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 Here, the Court has not required Respondent to respond to the petition, and Respondent 11 | has not made an appearance in this matter. It is unclear against whom Petitioner seeks sanctions, 12 | and Petitioner has failed to satisfy his burden to show why sanctions are justified. Accordingly, 13 | the Court HEREBY DENIES Petitioner’s motion for sanctions. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 16 | Dated: _March 10, 2022 _ ef 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28