Opinion
2:24-cv-02691-JWH-MAA
06-18-2024
Chukwu Obinna v. People of the State of California
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE MARIA A. AUDERO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings (In Chambers): Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution
On March 16, 2024, Petitioner Chukwu Obinna, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On April 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit transferred the Petition to this Court, finding that this is the appropriate district for Petitioner to challenge his detention arising out of criminal proceedings in Los Angeles Superior Court. (ECF No. 2.) The Petition alleges two grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) trial court failed to give Petitioner a fair hearing in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. (Pet. 4-5.) On April 19, 2024, Petitioner paid the filing fee in this action. (ECF No. 5.)
Pinpoint citations to court documents in this Order reference the page numbers generated by CM/ECF.
On April 25, 2024, the Court issued an Order re: Filing of Petition, ordering Petitioner to show cause why the Court should not recommend dismissal of the action based on the following defects in the Petition: (1) the improper form was used for the Petition that omitted information about whether the procedural requirements for a habeas action had been met; and (2) the respondent listed on the Petition was improper and deprived the Court of personal jurisdiction over the Petition (“Order”). (ECF No. 6, at 2.) The Court ordered Petitioner to respond to the Order by no later than May 25, 2024. (Id.)
To date, Petitioner has not responded to the Court's Order as required. Accordingly, Petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than July 18, 2024 why the Court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.
Failure to comply with this Order by July 18, 2024 may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
This Order is non-dispositive. However, if Petitioner believes this Order erroneously disposes of any of his claims or precludes any relief sought, he may file objections with the district judge within twenty (20) days after the date of the Order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.
It is so ordered.