From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vasquez v. Robertson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 29, 2022
2:21-cv-00726 WBS DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00726 WBS DB P

11-29-2022

NICOLAS VASQUEZ, II, Petitioner, v. JIM ROBERTSON, Respondent.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DEBOFAH BARNES UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 27, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and that petitioner failed to comply with exhaustion requirements. (ECF No. 19.) Petitioner has not filed an opposition, a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss, or sought additional time to file a response to the motion. Local Rule 230(1) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion...”

Accordingly, the court will direct petitioner to show cause in writing why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. Petitioner is advised that failure to file a response to the motion to dismiss may result in a recommendation that the motion be granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order petitioner shall either file and serve an opposition to the motion to dismiss or show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.


Summaries of

Vasquez v. Robertson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 29, 2022
2:21-cv-00726 WBS DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022)
Case details for

Vasquez v. Robertson

Case Details

Full title:NICOLAS VASQUEZ, II, Petitioner, v. JIM ROBERTSON, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 29, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-00726 WBS DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022)