Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00283-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

THOMAS M. KLASSY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FELICIA PONCE, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-283-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner is a is a federal prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

 On June 6, 2016, the court reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court found petitioner failed to assert that he is in custody in 

violation of federal law, or challenge the length or execution of his sentence. Although 

drafted in vague and conclusory terms, petitioner’s claims appeared to relate solely to the 

conditions of his confinement. The court, therefore, found that there is no apparent basis for 

relief pursuant to § 2241 and dismissed the petition with leave to amend. ECF No. 10. 

Accordingly, the court granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition and warned him 

that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed 

and petitioner has not filed an amended petition, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

Case 2:16-cv-00283-EFB Document 11 Filed 07/12/16 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

 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “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.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (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 this action is DISMISSED and the court 

declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

Dated: July 11, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00283-EFB Document 11 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 2