Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey Burgess
Petitioner
Hector Alfonzo Rios
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.

I. Background

Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas 

corpus on May 3, 2012. Many of Petitioner’s numerous claims were 

COREY BURGESS,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN HECTOR ALFONZO RIOS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER TO RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE 

NO LATER THAN TWENTY (20) DAYS 

AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR 

RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

AN ORDER OF THE COURT (DOC. 50)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE 

NO LATER THAN TWENTY (20) DAYS 

AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER 

OPPOSITION OR NOTICE OF NONOPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 49)

ORDER PERMITTING PETITIONER TO FILE 

A REPLY NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS 

AFTER SERVICE OF ANY OPPOSITION

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO RESPONDENT

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 51 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 4
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

dismissed in September 2012, and Respondent was directed to file a 

response to the petition. Respondent filed an answer on November 

19, 2012, and Petitioner filed a traverse on December 17, 2012. 

On July 5, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint, which the Court considered to be a motion for 

leave to file an amended petition. On July 9, 2013, the Court 

issued an order setting a briefing schedule directing Respondent to 

file an opposition or a notice of non-opposition no later than 

thirty days after service; Petitioner was to file a reply within 

thirty days after service of Respondent’s brief. The entry and 

issuance of the order are set forth on the docket. (Doc. 50.) The 

associated notice of electronic filing reflects that the order was 

electronically mailed to the Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, the 

Litigation Coordinator, and Mark Joseph McKeon (specifically, 

mark.mckeon@usdoj.gov, Filly.DaSilva@usdoj.gov, 

michelle.holliday@usdoj.gov, usacae.ecffrsgen@usdoj.gov). Thus, 

Respondent had ample notice of the order. 

Although over sixty days have passed since the Court issued the 

briefing order, Respondent has not filed either an opposition to the 

motion or a notice of non-opposition.

II. Order to Respondent to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not 

 Be Imposed

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in 

sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of 

the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b), 11; Local Rule 110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-

43 (1991). Local Rule 110 provides that a failure of counsel or of 

a party to comply with the Local Rules or with any order of the 

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 51 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Court may be grounds of imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions authorized by statute, rule, or within the inherent power 

of the Court. 

A Court may impose monetary sanctions, payable to the Court, in 

the nature of a fine pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers where 

the Court finds that the offending conduct was undertaken in bad 

faith. Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9th Cir. 

1989). Monetary sanctions may be imposed for violation of a local 

rule upon a finding of conduct amounting to recklessness, gross 

negligence, or repeated unintentional flouting of court rules. Id.

at 1480. Sanctions should not be imposed without giving counsel 

notice and an opportunity to be heard. Miranda v. Southern Pacific 

Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 522-23 (9th Cir. 1983).

Here, Respondent has failed to comply with an order of the 

Court where Respondent apparently had notice of the order and the 

ability to comply. Respondent’s failure has resulted in delay in 

readying Petitioner’s motion for decision. It has further required 

the expenditure of the Court’s scarce resources to enforce an order

that should require no policing, but rather should depend for its 

effectuation upon the professionalism of Respondent’s counsel and 

the good will of the pertinent party to the action -- which is

Respondent. 

Respondent will be given an opportunity to show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed. 

Respondent is INFORMED that a failure to respond to this order 

will be deemed a wilful failure to comply with an order of the 

Court.

///

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 51 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 4
4

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

III. Respondent’s Obligation to File Opposition or Notice of

 Non-Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Pursuant to this Court’s order of July 9, 2013, Respondent 

continues to have an obligation to file an opposition or a notice of 

non-opposition to Petitioner’s motion for leave to file an amended 

petition.

IV. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1) No later than twenty (20) days after the date of service of 

this order, Respondent shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why sanctions 

should not be imposed for Respondent’s failure to comply with the 

Court’s briefing order; and 

2) No later than twenty (20) days after the date of service of 

this order, Respondent shall FILE opposition or notice of nonopposition to Petitioner’s motion for leave to file an amended 

petition; and

3) Any reply by Petitioner to any opposition filed by 

Respondent shall be FILED no later than thirty days after the date 

of service of the opposition.

Respondent is INFORMED that a failure to comply with this order 

shall be considered to a wilful failure to comply with an order of 

the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 51 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 4