Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02120/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02120-6/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MILORAD OLIC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2120 KJM GGH P 

ORDER AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent’s motion to dismiss was filed and served on July 17, 2015. (ECF 

No. 32.) Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed within 

twenty-one days after the date of service of the motion. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(l). Court records 

reflect that petitioner failed to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion, 

despite receiving an extension of time in which to do so. (See ECF No. 35.) 

It is true that petitioner had filed his most recent motion to obtain legal property on July 

27, 2015, (ECF No. 34), which was construed as a motion for protective order and granted on 

August 7, 2015, (ECF No. 35); however, respondent filed a satisfactory response on August 28, 

2015, outlining the circumstances under which petitioner and his property have been transferred 

Case 2:14-cv-02120-KJM-GGH Document 40 Filed 10/07/15 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 

2

between institutions and how he is in possession of all of his legal materials. It now appears 

without question that petitioner has received all of his legal property. Therefore, as petitioner has 

been in possession of his legal property since at least August 28, 2015, he will not be granted 

further extensions of time in which to respond to the motion to dismiss, and the failure to file an 

opposition will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Within twenty-one days from 

the date of this order petitioner shall file and serve an opposition or non-opposition to the motion 

to dismiss, and shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to 

timely to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Failure to file 

opposition or a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and 

shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: October 6, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Olic2120.osc 

Case 2:14-cv-02120-KJM-GGH Document 40 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2