Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02065/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02065-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS EPPERSON, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-02065-SMS (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

AGAINST RESPONDENT

[Doc. 4]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 16, 2009. On

December 15, 2009, the Court directed Respondent to file a response within sixty days from the

date of service of that order. Over sixty days have passed and Respondent has failed to file a

response. Review of the certificate of service reveals that Respondent was served with this order

at the appropriate address.

Local Rule 110 provides that “a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.@ 

///

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-02065-SMS Document 7 Filed 03/01/10 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED within twenty (20) days of service of this order,

to SHOW CAUSE why appropriate sanctions should not be imposed for failing to obey a court

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-02065-SMS Document 7 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2