Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01687-10/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

In his motion to dismiss filed on February 8, 2008, James Hartly who is the current 1

Warden of Avenal State Prison, requested that he be substituted as Respondent in this matter

pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in place of the predecessor

Respondent, California Department of Corrections. The Court subsequently received a notice

from Petitioner that he was transferred to Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP). Therefore, the

Court will substitute Michael Martel, who is the current Warden at MCSP, as Respondent in this

matter pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY FRANCIS O’LEARY,

Petitioner, No. 1:06-cv-01687 ALA (HC )

vs.

MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER 1

 /

Gary O’Leary, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for habeas corpus

relief pursuant to § 2254(a) on October 12, 2006. Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated

at Mule Creek State Prison, serving an indeterminate state prison sentence of sixteen years. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s application on February 8, 2008. (Doc.

No. 18). On February 12, 2008 and April 15, 2008, the Court issued orders directing Petitioner

to file a response in opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 20 and 25). 

Case 1:06-cv-01687-ALA Document 27 Filed 08/19/08 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 failed to file a response or otherwise comply with the Court’s orders by the due dates. 

On August 6, 2008, the Court issued another order directing Petitioner to file a response in

opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss no later than August 15, 2008. (Doc. No. 26). 

The Court informed Petitioner that failure to comply with the order would result in this action

being dismissed for failure to prosecute. Petitioner has failed to respond to or otherwise comply

with the Court’s order. 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The clerk is directed to

enter judgment and close the case.

 /////

DATED: August 18, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:06-cv-01687-ALA Document 27 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 2