Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01856-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Bailey
Petitioner
Ken Clark
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BAILEY

Petitioner, No. 2: 09-cv-1856 GEB KJN P

vs.

KEN CLARK, 

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

dismiss filed September 28, 2009.

On July 6, 2010, the undersigned denied petitioner’s fifth motion for extension of

time to file an opposition. The July 6, 2010, order stated that petitioner had ample opportunity

during the ninth months since respondent filed his motion to prepare his opposition. Petitioner’s

opposition was ordered due on August 12, 2010. Petitioner did not file an opposition.

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 . . . .” Petitioner’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion. 

Case 2:09-cv-01856-GEB -KJN Document 39 Filed 08/23/10 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s September 28,

2009 motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) be granted.

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 fourteen

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 reply to the objections

shall be served and filed 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: August 23, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

bai1856.fr

Case 2:09-cv-01856-GEB -KJN Document 39 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2