Opinion
2:21-cv-1768 TLN DB P
06-14-2022
HUGO SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PAUL THOMPSON, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner seeks relief under the First Step Act (“FSA”) of 2018. On April 18, 2022, the government filed a response and motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner has not opposed the motion.
The First Step Act made changes to the duration of federal prison sentences, such as incentivizing participation in programs and productive activities by awarding time credits against their sentences. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4).
Local Rule 230(1) 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 . . . .” Id. Additionally, by order dated February 17, 2022, petitioner was advised that “an opposition to a motion to dismiss is due within thirty days of service of the motion to dismiss[.]” (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Petitioner is further advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of this order petitioner shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the action dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.