Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02590/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02590-3/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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYOSON JOIEL SUGGS,

Petitioner, No. 02:09-cv-2590 KJN P

vs.

STEPHEN W. MAYBERG, DIRECTOR, 

ATASCADERO STATE PRISON, 

 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with an application for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 19, 2010, respondent filed a

motion to dismiss this action. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion. Local Rule

230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party 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 . . . .” 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner show cause,

within twenty-one days, why his failure to oppose respondent’s April 19, 2010 motion to dismiss

should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion, and shall file 

////

Case 2:09-cv-02590-KJN Document 23 Filed 06/21/10 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

 The court notes that service of the motion to dismiss was addressed to petitioner at

1

California State Prison– Sacramento (“CSP-S”), P. O. Box 290002, Represa CA 95671-0002, which

is the proper mailing address for CSP-S. (Dkt. No. 20, at 9.) However, plaintiff filed a notice of

change of address which set forth the same address with the exception of the postal box number,

which he identified as P.O. Box 290066. (Dkt. No. 21.) Because this difference is minor in light

of established institutional procedures for processing mail to prisoners who are often moved within

each facility, and service of the motion to dismiss was properly addressed (including its identification

of petitioner by his inmate number), the court does not, at present, identify a problem in service. 

such opposition. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to respond to the instant order, or to file an

1

opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 18, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

sugg2590.46h.osc

Case 2:09-cv-02590-KJN Document 23 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2