Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

(HC) Drakeford v. Lizaraga, 2:17-cv-1571 MCE DB P. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180117766 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On November 15, 2017, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion. In the court's order filed September 20, 2017, petitioner was advised that any opposition to a motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the motion. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner has
More

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 15, 2017, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion.

In the court's order filed September 20, 2017, petitioner was advised that any opposition to a motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the motion. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner has filed no opposition, although court records reflect petitioner was properly served with notice of the motion.1

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . ." Further, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."

Petitioner is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss will be deemed a statement of non-opposition and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner will be given one more opportunity to file an opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order petitioner shall file his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss. If petitioner fails to file an opposition, this court will recommend dismissal of this action.

FootNotes


1. The court notes that respondent filed two proofs of service. The first shows that respondent served petitioner with a copy of the motion on November 15, 2017. (ECF No. 9-3.) The second is an amended proof of service showing that respondent served petitioner on December 5, 2017. (ECF No. 10.) The court accepts this amended proof of service as reflecting the date petitioner was in fact served.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer