Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00560-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Frances Allen
Petitioner
Kimberly Hughes
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 

KAREN FRANCES ALLEN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KIMBERLY HUGHES, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-560-GEB-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 12, 2016, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the 

petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to respondent’s motion to 

dismiss. 

 A responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition 

may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the 

imposition of sanctions.” L. R. 230(l). Failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules 

“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.” L. R. 110. The court may dismiss this action 

with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 

Case 2:16-cv-00560-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 08/11/16 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

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 

regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order, 

petitioner shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. 

Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 

Dated: August 11, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00560-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 2