Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00591/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00591-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ORLANDO ANTONIO MYLES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN W.L. MONTGOMERY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-00591-GEB-GGH 

ORDER 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). 

On October 15, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to show cause within thirty days why he 

failed to file a timely opposition to respondent’s August 18, 2015, motion to dismiss. ECF No. 

17. The same order warned petitioner that if he failed to respond to the court’s order or file an 

opposition within thirty days the undersigned would recommend that his case be dismissed. Id. 

On November 17, 2015, petitioner filed a response to the court’s order, explaining that he did not 

file a timely opposition for two reasons. ECF No. 18. First, petitioner states that he was moved 

from Calipatria State Prison to Susanville (High Desert State Prison) and as a result has had 

problems receiving his mail. Id. Second, petitioner states that his “paralegal” (who writes all of 

his filings) has recently moved as well, which delays his responses because mail sent to her must 

Case 2:15-cv-00591-TLN-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/07/16 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

be re-directed from her old address, then mailed back to him for his signature. Id. Petitioner has 

yet, however, to file an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss in accordance with the 

court’s order. 

The court finds that petitioner has shown good cause why he failed to file a timely 

opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss up until the filing of his response. Petitioner does 

not offer an explanation for why, however, he failed to file an opposition along with his response, 

or in the almost two months that has passed since then. Nevertheless, the court will grant 

petitioner one more opportunity to file an opposition. Petitioner must file an opposition to 

respondent’s motion to dismiss within thirty days of the service of this order. If petitioner fails to 

do so, the court will recommend that this matter be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 

41(b). 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Its October 15, 2015, order to show cause, ECF No. 17, is DISCHARGED; and 

2. Petitioner must file an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss within thirty days 

of the service of this order. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to the pending 

motion to dismiss will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: January 7, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/GGH17; myle591.disch 

Case 2:15-cv-00591-TLN-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2