Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02182/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02182-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Arnold
Respondent
Alfonso Gomes Reynaldo
Petitioner

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

ALFONSO GOMES REYNALDO,

Petitioner,

v.

A. ARNOLD,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-2182 KJM DB P

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 2, 2016, respondent moved to dismiss the 

petition on the grounds that it is untimely and petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies. 

(ECF No. 14.) On August 15, 2016, petitioner was ordered to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed for his failure to respond to the June 2 motion. (ECF No. 17.) On August 25, 

petitioner moved for a 60-day extension of time to respond to the motion. (ECF No. 18.) On 

August 30, the court granted petitioner a 30-day extension of time. (ECF No. 19.) The thirty 

days has expired and petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss or otherwise 

responded to the court’s August 30 order. 

Local Rule 230(l) provides in 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

////

Case 2:15-cv-02182-KJM-DB Document 21 Filed 10/11/16 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

the granting of the motion . . . .” In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a 

court to dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court. 

Petitioner has had four months to respond to respondent’s motion to dismiss, but has 

failed to do so. The court finds dismissal without prejudice appropriate under Rule 41(b).

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: October 7, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-habeas/Reyn2182.46fr

Case 2:15-cv-02182-KJM-DB Document 21 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 2