Armas v. People Of California
Filing
6
ORDER Directing Petitioner To SHOW CAUSE In Writing Within Twenty-One (21) Days Why The Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To File A Motion To Amend The Petition And To Follow An Order Of The Court (Doc. 4 ), Deadline: Twenty-One (21) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/24/2011. Show Cause Response due by 7/21/2011. (Fahrney, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
AMADO ARMAS,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,
14
Respondent.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv—00772-SKO-HC
ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO
SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WITHIN
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION TO
AMEND THE PETITION AND TO FOLLOW
AN ORDER OF THE COURT (DOC. 4)
DEADLINE:
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a
18
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
19
The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.
21
the Court is Petitioner’s petition, which was filed in this Court
22
on May 13, 2011.
23
Pending before
On May 17, 2011, the Court issued an initial screening order
24
with respect to the petition in which the Court noted that
25
Petitioner had not named the proper respondent and granted
26
Petitioner leave to file a motion to amend the petition and name
27
a proper respondent no later than thirty (30) days after the date
28
of service of the order.
The order warned Petitioner that a
1
1
failure to move to amend the petition and state a proper
2
respondent would result in a recommendation that the petition be
3
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
4
on Petitioner on May 17, 2011.
5
The order was served by mail
To date, over thirty days have passed, but Petitioner has
6
neither filed a motion to amend the petition nor timely sought an
7
extension of time in which to file a motion to amend the
8
petition.
9
A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in
10
sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of
11
the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
12
P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.
13
31, 42-43 (1991).
Fed. R. Civ.
14
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
15
1. No later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of
16
service of this order, Petitioner shall show cause why this
17
action should not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s
18
order of May 17, 2011; Petitioner shall show cause in writing
19
because the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary;
20
and
21
22
2. The failure to respond to this order will result in
dismissal of the action.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
ie14hj
June 24, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
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?
