Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06479/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06479-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL ALLEN WOODYARD, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6479 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

vs.

[Doc. 13]

BILL LOCKYER, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 28, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the instant petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Respondent, however, failed to submit the state court records cited in his answer. Therefore,

on December 14, 2005, the Court directed Respondent to submit the state court records within ten

days from the date of service of that order. Respondent failed to comply or respond to the Court’s

order. On January 25, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be

imposed on Respondent for failing to comply with the Court’s order. On February 2, 2006,

Respondent submitted a response to the order to show cause, along with filing a notice of lodging of

the state court records.

In its response, Respondent’s counsel declares under penalty of perjury that she was placed

on disability from August 19, 2005 to February 1, 2006. Although her caseload was monitored by

Case 1:04-cv-06479-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 02/08/06 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 The Court will issue a ruling on the merits of the petition in due course.

1

2

fellow deputies in her office, no response to the Court’s order was filed. Counsel declares that upon

her return to the office on February 1, 2006, she discovered the Court’s initial order to submit the

record as well as the Court’s order to show cause and lodged the state court records as soon as

possible. 

Based on counsel’s declaration that the failure to respond to the Court’s orders was due to the

negligent management of the case and not due to intentional conduct, the Court will discharge the

order to show cause. 

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06479-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2