Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01673/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01673-2/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

1

 An exhibit attached to respondents’ motion appears to show that petitioner has now

been removed.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAL SINGH GREWAL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1673 GEB EFB P

vs.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is an individual detained by the Department of Homeland Security. 

Proceeding without counsel, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On January 22, 2008, respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is

moot. Petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition.1

A 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 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. 

Case 2:07-cv-01673-GEB -EFB Document 18 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

 Petitioner may be receiving mail sent to his address of record and forwarded by either

the postal service or family members. 

2

It appears that petitioner has been deported, however, the court files this order in an

abundance of caution, admonishing petitioner that the court may dismiss this action with or

without prejudice, as appropriate, if he disobeys an order or the Local Rules.2

 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,

petitioner 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. 

Dated: March 27, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01673-GEB -EFB Document 18 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2