Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00684-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA SCHULTZ,

Respondent.

 /

1:05-CV-0684 REC LJO HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A COURT

ORDER

[Docs. #15, 19, 22]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 27, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to submit a

response to the petition. Due to an error in electronic processing, the order was not electronically

served on Respondent. Accordingly, on December 15, 2005, the Clerk of Court properly served

the order on Respondent. 

The December 15, 2005, reservice set the deadline to respond to March 15, 2005. On 

January 9, 2006, the Court issued an order confirming the deadline of March 15, 2005. This order

was not properly served on Respondent. Nevertheless, Respondent was properly served on

December 15, 2005 with the original order. The time for filing a response has passed and

Respondent has not answered in any manner.

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 25 Filed 03/31/06 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

2

Local Rule 11-110 provides: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Accordingly, Respondent is HEREBY ORDERED to, within thirty (30) days of service of

this order, SHOW CAUSE why appropriate sanctions should not be imposed for failing to

comply with a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00684-LJO -GSA Document 25 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2