From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Darrell King v. Warden

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jan 23, 2024
2:23-06444 TJH (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2024)

Opinion

2:23-06444 TJH (ADS)

01-23-2024

Darrell King v. Warden


Present: The Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL

Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) filed by Darrell King (“Petitioner”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On August 28, 2023, the Court issued an Order Regarding Screening of Petition notifying Petitioner that the Petition is subject to dismissal (the “August 28 Order”). (Dkt. No. 3.) Petitioner was required to respond to the Court by October 18, 2023. (Dkt. No. 5.) Upon further review of the Petition, the Court issued a Second Order Regarding Screening of Petition on December 8, 2023, to clarify the apparent deficiencies in the Petition and reasons why it is subject to dismissal (the “December 8 Order”). (Dkt. No. 6.) Petitioner was required to respond to the Court's December 8 Order by December 29, 2023. (Id.) On January 2, 2024, Petitioner responded to the Court's August 28 Order, but his response does not address or rectify the Petition's deficiencies identified in the Court's December 8 Order. (Dkt. No. 7.) To date, Petitioner has not responded to the Court's December 8 Order.

Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow court orders by no later than February 6, 2024. Petitioner may respond to this Order by filing a response to the Court's December 8, 2023, Order (Dkt. No. 6). If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue his claims, he may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

For Petitioner's convenience, the Clerk of Court is directed to attach the Court's December 8, 2023, Order (Dkt. No. 6), a Notice of Dismissal Form (CV-09), a blank copy of the Civil Rights Complaint form (CV-66), and a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support form (CV-60P) to this Order.

Petitioner is hereby cautioned that failing to comply with this Order will result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

This order is nondispositive. 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 20 days of the date of the order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Darrell King v. Warden

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jan 23, 2024
2:23-06444 TJH (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2024)
Case details for

Darrell King v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:Darrell King v. Warden

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jan 23, 2024

Citations

2:23-06444 TJH (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2024)