Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PEREZ v. GIPSON, 2:13-cv-01921 DAD P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140702846 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jul. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, District Judge. Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). ( See Dkt. Nos. 8, 10.) On June 2, 2014, this court directed petitioner to file and serve, within 21 days, an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, responsive to respo
More

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). (See Dkt. Nos. 8, 10.)

On June 2, 2014, this court directed petitioner to file and serve, within 21 days, an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, responsive to respondent's pending motion to dismiss. (See ECF No. 12.) The court also informed petitioner that: "Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)." (Id. at 2.) More than 21 days have passed, and petitioner has not responded to the court's order, or otherwise communicated with the court.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

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