JOHNSON v. STANTON, 2:12-cv-2239-EFB P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140428991
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN, District Judge. Petitioner is a federal prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. 1 On February 6, 2014, respondent Grondolsky filed a motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2014, respondents Solano County Jail and Barrett filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner failed to timely file an opposition to either motion. On March 19, 2014, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to any motion to dismi
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN, District Judge. Petitioner is a federal prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. 1 On February 6, 2014, respondent Grondolsky filed a motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2014, respondents Solano County Jail and Barrett filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner failed to timely file an opposition to either motion. On March 19, 2014, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to any motion to dismis..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, District Judge.
Petitioner is a federal prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1
On February 6, 2014, respondent Grondolsky filed a motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2014, respondents Solano County Jail and Barrett filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner failed to timely file an opposition to either motion. On March 19, 2014, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to any motion to dismiss. That order gave petitioner 21 days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition and warned him that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.
The 21 days have passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition nor otherwise responded to the March 19, 2014 order.2
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
FootNotes
1. This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties' consent. ECF Nos. 5, 31; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; E.D. Cal. L.R. 301, 305.
2. Although it appears from the file that petitioner's copy of the order was returned, he was properly served. It is a party's responsibility to keep the court apprised of a current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Source: Leagle
