Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00923/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00923-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Gaxiola-Sanchez
Petitioner
Eric Holder
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

RICARDO GAXIOLA-SANCHEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC HOLDER, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0923-MCE-EFB P (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 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 18, 2015, the court issued an order directing service of the 

petition on respondent. Respondent was therein ordered to file an answer or a motion to dismiss 

within 60 days, and petitioner was ordered to file either a traverse or an opposition thereto within 

30 days thereafter. ECF No. 5. 

 On July 2, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the operative habeas petition. ECF 

No. 12. Plaintiff has, to date, failed to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 

9, 2015, after noting that it appeared that petitioner may have been temporarily transferred to 

another institution while the motion was pending, the court issued an order granting petitioner 

thirty days to file an opposition. ECF No. 13 at 2. More than sixty days have passed since that 

order was issued, and petitioner has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00923-MCE-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 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

 The court notes that, on October 2, 2015, petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion to 

Withdraw,” which provided in pertinent part: “Petitioner request that the Court enters an order 

allowing Petitioner to withdraw his previously filed motion under case no. 2:15-cv-923 DAD.” 

ECF No. 14. The court is unsure of what petitioner intended by this statement. The only 

previously-filed motion that is outstanding is respondent’s motion to dismiss; petitioner may not 

request withdrawal of a motion filed by the opposing party. Petitioner’s only options are to file 

an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Alternately, if petitioner intended 

to withdraw his petition for writ of habeas corpus in its entirety, he is informed that he may do so 

by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). 

 Petitioner will be given one final opportunity to file an opposition to respondent’s motion 

to dismiss. Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 230(l) provides in pertinent 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 . . . .” Further, Local Rule 110 provides 

that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all 

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Accordingly, 

petitioner is advised that his failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order, 

plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss. Failure to file an opposition will 

be deemed a statement of non-opposition and will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

DATED: November 13, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00923-MCE-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2