Opinion
5:23-cv-01399-DDP-AJR
01-03-2024
Francisco Bejarano Manjarrez v. Tristan Lemon
PRESENT: HONORABLE A. JOEL RICHLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED AND THE ACTION DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On August 7, 2023, Francisco Bejarano Manjarrez, a California state prisoner represented by counsel, filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “FAP”). (See Dkt. 9.) On November 22, 2023, Respondent Tristan Lemon filed an Answer to the FAP, requesting that the FAP be denied on the merits. (Dkt. 17.) Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's answer was due on December 22, 2023, within 30 days of service of the Answer. (See Dkt. 16.)
More than a week has passed since Petitioner's deadline to file a Reply to Respondent's Answer. Petitioner is advised that pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, failure to file required papers may be deemed consent to the granting of the relief requested by the Answer, which would be the denial of the Petition on the merits. Petitioner is further advised that failure to file a Reply to the Answer may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Petitioner is ordered to file a Reply, if any, within 14 days of the date of this Order (January 17, 2024).
IT IS SO ORDERED.