Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00457-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PANFILO SALINAS-ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00457 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE

IMPOSED UPON RESPONDENT FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT

ORDER

[Docs. 11, 12]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 3, 2007, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the instant petition. 

(Court Doc. 6.) Although Respondent filed a motion for an extension of time to file the answer

on June 29, 2007, which was granted on July 9, 2007, Respondent failed to file an answer. 

Therefore, on July 31, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not

be imposed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Court Doc. 11.) On August 17, 2007,

Respondent filed a response to the order to show cause, along with a motion to dismiss the

petition. (Court Docs. 12, 13.) 

In his response to the order to show cause, Respondent states that the failure to respond

“was the result of an inadvertent calendaring error and counsel’s failure to note the oversight

during a period of time when she was largely out of the office and preparing for trial.” 

(Response, at 1.) Respondent’s counsel states that she is her mother’s primary care provider and

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 10/01/07 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

27

28

2

her mother has underwent extensive surgery resulting in counsel’s absence from her officer

during July and August. (Response, at 1.) Counsel states, “During the same time, Ms. Doyle

[counsel] was (and is) preparing for a long-cause trial with complex medical issues, in addition to

her regular case load. Ms. Doyle’s secretary is very good about calendaring. The oversight was

exception to the rule and something Ms. Doyle normally would have caught but for the above

circumstances.” (Response, at 1-2.) 

Good cause having been demonstrated, the Court’s July 31, 2007, order to show cause, is

HEREBY DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 28, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2