Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00656/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00656-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY ANTHONY JONES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

WARDEN MENDOZA-POWERS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-00656 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A

COURT ORDER

[Doc. #4]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SERVE ORDER ON ATTORNEY

GENERAL

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On May 17, 2007, a Scheduling Order was issued in this case wherein the parties were

directed to file a completed consent/decline form. In addition, Respondent was directed to file a

notice of appearance within sixty days of the date of service of the order. Further, Respondent was

ordered to file a motion to dismiss the petition within sixty days or an answer within ninety days of

the date of service of the order. 

On July 17, 2007, Deputy Attorney General Jessica N. Blonien appeared on behalf of

Respondent. On the same date, Respondent filed a decline to jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. On

July 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a consent to jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. As of this date,

however, over ninety (90) days have passed and the Court has not received the Court ordered

response from Respondent. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00656-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/11/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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: September 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00656-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2