Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00004/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00004-9/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)

---

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HERMAN GARCIA SANDOVAL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MIKE MARTEL, Warden, 

Respondent. 

____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00004-RSM-JLW 

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT 

TO LODGE STATE COURT RECORD 

AND NOTICE OF SANCTIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By Order filed March 1, 2010, respondent was directed 

to file an answer to the second amended petition within forty-five days from the date 

petitioner filed his amended petition. (See Docket 37 at 2.) Petitioner timely filed his second 

amended petition on March 29, 2010. (See Dkt. 38.) Counsel for respondent failed to file a 

response within the forty-five day period provided by this Court’s Order. 

 

Case 2:07-cv-00004-RSM-JLW Document 42 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 3
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2 

 After directing counsel to file an answer and to show cause why sanctions should not 

be imposed for failure to comply with this Court’s March 1, 2010 Order, counsel for 

respondent filed an answer on the fourteenth day of this Court’s fourteen-day deadline. (See

Dkt. 40 and 41.) He failed, however, to lodge the state court record with the answer. 

 The Court finds such failure inexcusable. Counsel for respondent has been directed 

repeatedly to comply with this Court’s rules and orders. In fact, he was specifically directed 

to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules governing Section 2254 Cases in the Court’s February 26, 

2010, Order. (See Dkt. 37.) Counsel for respondent went so far as to specifically 

acknowledge the relevance of the state court’s record in the answer by citing it and stating 

that relevant transcripts would be filed with the Answer. (See Dkt. 41 at 3.) No such 

documents have been lodged with the court, in violation of Rule 5, above, and Local Rule 

190(f). See Local Rule 190(f) (requiring state court habeas transcripts, if filed in paper, be 

filed concurrently with the filing of a Notice of Filing in Paper Format). 

 Counsel for respondent’s delays and failure to comply with this Court’s rules and 

orders has prevented this Court from expeditiously addressing the merits of the second 

amended petition. Counsel for respondent is therefore apprised that failure to timely comply 

with this Order will result in the imposition of monetary and/or other sanctions. See Local 

Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of 

the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 

statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”). No further admonitions will be 

given. 

 

Case 2:07-cv-00004-RSM-JLW Document 42 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 3
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3 

JOHN L. WEINBERG 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before Wednesday, June 7, 

2010, counsel for respondent shall file all relevant portions of the Reporter’s Transcript and 

Clerk’s Transcript in compliance with this Court’s Order and all federal and local rules. 

DATED this 1st day of July, 2010. 

A 

Case 2:07-cv-00004-RSM-JLW Document 42 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3