Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00673/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00673-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Durrell Kirk
Petitioner
John Marshall
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY DURRELL KIRK,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN MARSHALL,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0673 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO

THE PETITION WITHIN NINETY DAYS

FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER

[Docs. 7, 15]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 18, 2006, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to submit a responsive

pleading within ninety days from the date of service of that order. (Court Doc. 6.) Respondent

failed to respond or comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, on November 6, 2006, the Court

issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. (Court Doc. 7.) The Court

inadvertently did not electronically serve Respondent with the order to show cause; therefore, the

Clerk of Court re-served the order on December 13, 2006. (Court Docs. 11, 13.) 

On December 20, 2006, Respondent filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. 

(Court Doc. 15.) Respondent submits that “in July 2006, electronic orders issued by this Court in

cases assigned to the Sacramento Appeals, Writs and Trials section of the California Attorney

General’s Office, Sacramento (AWT) were received by Senior Assistant Attorney General Jo

Graves, her secretary Marianne Perez, federal habeas Senior Legal Analyst Donise Smitham, the

Case 1:06-cv-00673-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 01/10/07 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

 The Court notes that although the order to show, filed November 6, 2006, was not electronically served 1

by the Clerk of the Court, the Court’s initial July 18, 2006, order to respond was adequately served on Respondent. 

(Court Doc. 6.) Specially, Jo Graves, Marianne Perez, and docketing at AWT, received electronic service of the

Court’s July 18, 2006, order. (Id.) 

2

docketing unit and the Electronic Case Coordinator.” (Court Doc. 15, at 2.) Respondent states

that there is no record that AWT ever received this Court’s July 18, 2006, order to respond.1

Therefore, because there was no intentional failure to respond to the Court’s order, the order to

show cause should be vacated. 

Based on Respondent’s counsel representation that there is no record of service of the

Court’s order and therefore there was no intentional failure to respond to the Court’s order, the

Court will discharge the order to show cause.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause, issued November 6, 2006, is DISCHARGED and

VACATED;

2. The briefing order as set forth in the Court’s July 18, 2006, shall be effective as of

the date of service of the instant order. All provisions set forth in the July 18,

2006, remain in full force and effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00673-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2