Castro v. Cash
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/13/2011 discharging 7 Order to Show Cause and granting 8 MOTION for EXTENSION OF TIME to File Response. (Filing Deadline: 8/1/2011). (Lundstrom, T)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ISIDRO CASTRO,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
14
15
v.
B. M. CASH, Warden,
Respondent.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv—00441-SKO-HC
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE (DOC. 7)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
INFORM THE COURT CONCERNING
CLAIMS RAISED AND EXHAUSTION OF
STATE COURT REMEDIES (DOCS. 8, 5)
DEADLINE FOR PETITIONER’S
RESPONSE:
FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
20
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The matter has been referred to the
21
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
22
Rules 302 through 304.
Pending before the Court is the petition,
23
which was filed on March 16, 2011.
24
By order filed and served on Petitioner by mail on March 28,
25
2011, the Court directed Petitioner to inform the Court if he was
26
attempting to raise a claim concerning the ineffective assistance
27
of counsel and, if so, to show the Court that he had presented
28
1
1
the claim to the California Supreme Court and thus had exhausted
2
his state court remedies as to the claim.
3
warned Petitioner that failure to follow the order would result
4
in dismissal of the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.
5
The order expressly
When Petitioner failed to respond to the Court’s order, the
6
Court issued an order to Petitioner on May 17, 2011, to show
7
cause why the case should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s
8
failure to respond.
9
extension of time to respond.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for an
(Doc. 8.)
Petitioner has
10
explained that he was out to court.
11
out to court, the Court will discharge the order to show cause
12
why the case should not be dismissed, and the Court will give
13
Petitioner another opportunity to respond to the Court’s order
14
concerning his claim about his trial counsel.
15
Thus, because Petitioner was
The Court will grant Petitioner forty-five (45) days within
16
which to write the Court and inform the Court whether or not he
17
intended to allege in this case a claim that his trial counsel
18
was ineffective because of sleeping through proceedings.
19
Petitioner wants to raise such a claim in this case, he should so
20
state and should further inform the Court if he raised this claim
21
before the California Supreme Court and thus exhausted his state
22
court remedies as to the claim concerning counsel.
23
did not raise his claim concerning counsel to the California
24
Supreme Court, he should inform this Court that he did not do so.
25
If Petitioner does not want to raise a claim concerning counsel
26
in this case, he should inform the Court.
27
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
28
1. The order to show cause issued on May 17, 2011, is
2
If
If Petitioner
1
DISCHARGED; and
2
2. Petitioner is GRANTED until no later than forty-five (45)
3
days from the date of service of this order to write the Court
4
and inform the Court whether he is raising a claim concerning his
5
trial counsel and, if so, whether he raised this claim to the
6
California Supreme Court.
7
8
Petitioner is INFORMED that the failure to respond to this
order will result in dismissal of the action.
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
ie14hj
June 13, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
