Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01133/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01133-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY R. GARCIA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1133 FCD EFB P

vs.

D. ADAMS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On September 26, 2007, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner

requested an extension of time in which to file an opposition to respondents’ motion on October

22, 2007, which was granted, and another on November 26, 2007, which was also granted. On

January 2, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings and hold his petition in

abeyance so that he may seek permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to raise a

second or successive petition. On January 8, 2008, respondents filed an amended motion to

dismiss. Petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition.

A responding party’s failure “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 and may

result in the imposition of sanctions.” L. R. 78-230(m). Failure to comply with any order or

Case 2:07-cv-01133-EFB Document 24 Filed 03/27/08 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

2

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.” L. R. 11-110. The court may

recommend this action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if plaintiff

disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1252 (9th Cir.

1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing

to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se

plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed);

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this order,

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. 

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. 

Dated: March 27, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01133-EFB Document 24 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2