Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00087/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00087-4/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

1

 The court notes that three motions have been filed by petitioner’s parents in this case,

on September 17, 24, and 25, 2007. Petitioner is advised that petitioner’s parents do not have

standing to file motions in this case as they are not parties to the action. If petitioner is

incompetent, Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court, upon

motion served in accordance with Rule 25(a), may allow the action to be continued by the

party’s representative. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONOVAN PHIPPS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0087 WBS EFB P

vs.

MIKE EVANS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He filed, on January 16, 2007, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, together

with a motion to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance pending petitioner’s

exhaustion of state court remedies. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

state court remedies on August 15, 2007, but did not oppose or otherwise respond to petitioner’s

motion for stay and abeyance. Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss.1

 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00087-WBS-CHS Document 19 Filed 10/02/07 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

2

A responding 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. The court may

recommend this action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if plaintiff

disobeys an order or the Local Rules. 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:

1. Within 30 days of the date of this order, respondent shall file either an opposition to

petitioner’s January 16, 2007, motion for stay and abeyance or a statement of no opposition;

2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall either file an opposition to

respondents’ August 15, 2007, motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition;

3. Failure by either party to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: October 2, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00087-WBS-CHS Document 19 Filed 10/02/07 Page 2 of 2