Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05641/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05641-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OMAR KAHLIFE KING, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5641 AWI DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING 

PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO RESPONDENT’S REQUEST 

vs. TO VACATE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, [Doc. 20]

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 10, 2005, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the second amended

petition within sixty days from the date of service of that order. Respondent did not respond to the

Court’s order; therefore, on August 16, 2005, the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions

should not be imposed for failing to comply with the Court’s order. Although untimely, Respondent

filed a response to the order to show cause on November 7, 2005. 

On November 8, 2005, the Court discharged the order to show cause based on counsel’s

contention that his office’s staff did not handle the June 10, 2005 and August 16, 2005, orders properly

and he was therefore unaware of the Court’s orders. The Court concluded that because Respondent did

not intentionally fail to respond to the Court’s June 10, 2005 and August 16, 2005, orders, the order to

Case 1:04-cv-05641-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 01/25/06 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 On January 9, 2006, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. 

1

2

show cause was DISCHARGED, and Respondent was directed to file a response to the second amended

petition within dsaixytsy from the date of service of that order. 

1

On November 21, 2005, Petitioner filed a response to Respondent’s request to vacate the order

to show cause. In his response, Petitioner objects to discharging the order to show based on the

incompetence of Respondent’s counsel staff. Petitioner seeks sanctions and requests that the Court grant

him relief. 

Petitioner’s motion for sanctions must be denied. As stated in the Court’s November 8, 2005,

based on counsel’s contention that he did not receive the Court’s June 10, 2005 or August 16, 2005,

orders, he was unaware of the pending deadlines in this case. Petitioner has set forth no evidence that

counsel’s contentions are not sincere or that Respondent’s counsel intentionally failed to respond to the

Court’s orders. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for sanctions and for relief on his instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus must be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05641-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2