From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doby v. Gibson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Sep 21, 2015
CV 14-5444-AB (AS) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2015)

Opinion

          Randy Doby, Petitioner, Pro se, Corcoran, CA.

          For Dave Davey, Warden, Respondent: Jonathan Matthew Krauss, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA.


          PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge.

         On March 5, 2015, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (" First Amended Petition"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket Entry No. 14). On July 16, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Petition (" Motion to Dismiss") contending that Grounds Two through Five of the First Amended Petition are time barred and that Grounds Two through Five of the First Amended Petition are unexhausted. (Docket Entry No. 20). On July 16, 2015, the Court issued an Order directing Petitioner to file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss no later than August 17, 2015. (Docket Entry No. 22).

         To date, Petitioner has failed to file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss or request an extension of time in which to do so.

         Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within twenty-two (22) days of the date of this Order, or no later than October 13, 2015, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to comply with Court orders. Petitioner may discharge this Order by filing an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, or by filing a declaration under penalty of perjury stating why he is unable to do so.

         If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner's convenience.

         Petitioner is warned that the failure to timely file a response to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for his failure to prosecute and/or obey court orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.


Summaries of

Doby v. Gibson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Sep 21, 2015
CV 14-5444-AB (AS) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2015)
Case details for

Doby v. Gibson

Case Details

Full title:Randy Doby v. C. Gibson, Warden

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Sep 21, 2015

Citations

CV 14-5444-AB (AS) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2015)