Epperson v. Hartley
Filing
7
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Respondent signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 3/1/2010. Show Cause Response due by 3/24/2010. (Bradley, A)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 JAMES D. HARTLEY, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 Petitioner filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 16, 2009. On 18 December 15, 2009, the Court directed Respondent to file a response within sixty days from the 19 date of service of that order. Over sixty days have passed and Respondent has failed to file a 20 response. Review of the certificate of service reveals that Respondent was served with this order 21 at the appropriate address. 22 Local Rule 110 provides that "a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 23 Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 24 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.@ 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 / v. CURTIS EPPERSON, JR., Petitioner, 1:09-cv-02065-SMS (HC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST RESPONDENT [Doc. 4]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED within twenty (20) days of service of this order, to SHOW CAUSE why appropriate sanctions should not be imposed for failing to obey a court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 March 1, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
