Oliver v. Martel
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/20/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
*E-Filed 8/20/12*
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
6
7
PAUL OLIVER,
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
No. C 11-5740 RS (PR)
Petitioner,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
MICHAEL MARTEL,
11
Respondent.
/
12
13
14
This is a federal habeas corpus action. The petition was dismissed with leave to
15
amend within 30 days. Instead of filing an amended petition, petitioner filed a motion to stay
16
the action. The Court had instructed petitioner that in his amended petition he had to
17
address the issue of exhaustion, and that he could include a motion to stay the action. All
18
this, however, was to be included in an amended petition, which has not been filed. Because
19
petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s order, the action is DISMISSED without
20
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Any motion
21
to reopen the action must contain an amended petition detailing all claims, exhausted and
22
unexhausted, petitioner wishes to present for review. Any future motion to stay the action
23
must, unlike the one petitioner filed, make a showing of good cause justifying a stay of the
24
proceedings.
25
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 20, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
28
No. C 11-5740 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
]]>
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?
