Cover v. California, 2:18-cv-2784 KJN P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190211907
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a former prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On January 4, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action because this court no longer has jurisdiction. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(1) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition ma
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a former prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On January 4, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action because this court no longer has jurisdiction. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(1) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a former prisoner, proceeding pro se, with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 4, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action because this court no longer has jurisdiction. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(1) 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. . . ." Id.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner show cause, within thirty days, why his failure to oppose respondent's January 4, 2019 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion, and he shall file an opposition. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to respond to the instant order, or to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Source: Leagle
