Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01137/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01137-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE GRIFFIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JOEL D. MARTINEZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01137-DAD-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 19

Petitioner Robert Lee Griffin, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On June 25, 2018, the court granted petitioner’s 

motion to stay his petition and hold it in abeyance, pending exhaustion of his state court remedies. 

ECF No. 19. Petitioner was ordered to file a status report every 90 days, detailing his progress in 

exhausting his claims. Id. at 2. Petitioner was ordered to file a motion to lift the stay and an 

amended petition within 30 days of the California Supreme Court issuing a final order resolving 

his unexhausted claims. Id. 

The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a 

court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 

683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a court has a duty to 

resolve disputes expeditiously. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 

(9th Cir. 2002).

Case 1:17-cv-01137-DAD-HBK Document 26 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Here, petitioner has failed to file regular status reports with the court. In petitioner’s 

November 15, 2019 status report, he stated that the California Supreme Court ruled on his 

unexhausted claims in June 2019 and that his amended petition was forthcoming. We have not 

received an amended petition and more than 30 days have passed since petitioner’s claims were 

fully exhausted. Therefore, we will order petitioner to show cause why his case should not be 

dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 

Order

We order petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed. If petitioner 

wishes to continue seeking habeas relief, he should respond to this order within fourteen days 

from the date of service with an amended petition. The clerk’s office is directed to send 

petitioner a blank habeas petition form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:17-cv-01137-DAD-HBK Document 26 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2