Opinion
PETITIONER'S (1) MOTION FOR. STAY OF REMOVAL; (2) MOTION. TO RECONSIDER; AND (3). ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO AMEND
M. JAMES LORENZ, District Judge.
Petitioner Dimitri Valeryevich Tatarinov, represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. When the case was transferred to this court pursuant to the low number rule, Civil Local Rule 401. (d), the following motions were pending: (1) Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Removal During the Pendency of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed November 4, 2007; (2) Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate This Case with Case No. 07cv2033-L(NLS), filed November 4, 2007; (3) Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Enlargement of Time to File Respondent's Return, filed November 11, 2007; and (4) Petitioner's Motion to Amend Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed November 14, 2007. Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Removal During the Pendency of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED AS MOOT. Since filing this motion Petitioner has amended the Petition to add Respondents in whose custody Petitioner is currently held. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a new motion for stay.
The court notes all of Petitioner's motions failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1. Although the court is not denying Petitioner's motions on this ground, Petitioner is admonished that any further pleadings which fail to comply with Civil Local Rules or Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures may be stricken and may lead to penalties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1.
The motion for stay was erroneously filed in case no. 07cv2033-L(POR). Petitioner is ordered to re-file it in the instant case.
Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate This Case with Case No. 07cv2033-L(NLS) is the subject of a separate order granting the motion.
Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Enlargement of Time to File Respondent's Return is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner is correct in that the Order Granting Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Respondent's Return, filed November 9, 2007, erroneously states that "Petitioner has not requested a stay of deportation." However, because Petitioner has filed an amended petition which adds respondents and, as stated in a separate order granting Petitioner's motion to consolidate, Petitioner is ordered to file a consolidated petition, a new briefing schedule is required regardless of Respondent Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego's prior request for an extension of time.
Petitioner's Motion to Amend Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED AS MOOT because Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) without leave of court prior to the service of a responsive pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.