Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01131/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01131-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marquis Dominique Moore
Petitioner
Stu Sherman
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

MARQUIS DOMINIQUE MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-1131 MCE KJN P

ORDER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 27, 2020, respondent filed a motion to dismiss 

this action because it was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Petitioner has not opposed the motion. 

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 

the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. 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.” Id. Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure provides:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 

dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order 

Case 2:19-cv-01131-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 03/05/20 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

states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any 

dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, 

improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19--operates as 

an adjudication on the merits.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Nevertheless, petitioner is hereby provided another opportunity in which to 

oppose the motion to dismiss.

Here, petitioner challenges his 2012 conviction on three counts of robbery, two counts of 

assault with a firearm, one count of attempted murder, one count of burglary, and one count of 

false imprisonment. Petitioner was sentenced to a state prison term of 83 years-to-life. 

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

order, petitioner shall show cause why his failure to oppose respondent’s motion to dismiss 

should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion, and he shall file 

an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to respond to the 

instant order, or to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, will result in a 

recommendation that the petition be dismissed. 

Dated: March 4, 2020

/moor1131.46h

Case 2:19-cv-01131-MCE-KJN Document 19 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 2