Lamarr Brown v. Kim Holland

Filing 15

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish regarding Order to Show Cause re: Failure to Prosecute and to Comply with Court Order. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/30/2016. (ec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case
No.

CV 15-5079-RSWL (GJS)

Title

Lamarr Brown v. Kim Holland, Warden

Present:

Date

September 2,
2016

Hon. Gail J. Standish, United States Magistrate Judge
E. Carson

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioner:

Attorneys Present for Respondent:

None present

None present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Prosecute
and to Comply With Court Order

On July 9, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner a Rhines stay in this action. On June
9, 2016, at Petitioner’s request and based upon his advice that the California Supreme
Court has denied his habeas petition, the Court lifted the Rhines stay and ordered
Petitioner to file his First Amended Petition by no later than July 9, 2016. The Court
cautioned Petitioner that the First Amended Petition may not allege any claims in
addition to those pleaded in the originally-filed Petition in this case but may include
additional argument and support for those claims. On July 12, 2016, the Court granted
Petitioner’s request to extend his deadline to August 9, 2016, and reiterated the above
caution.
It is now 24 days past the deadline for filing a First Amended Petition, and
Petitioner has neither filed his First Amended Petition nor request any further extension
of time to do so. Thus, it is unclear that Petitioner intends to pursue this action.
Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should
not be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Procedure, based upon his failures to comply with the Court’s Orders and to file his First
Amended Petition. By no later than September 30, 2016, Petitioner shall file a
response to this Order explaining his noncompliance. Alternatively, Petitioner may

Initials of preparer __efc__
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case
No.

CV 15-5079-RSWL (GJS)

Title

Date

September 2,
2016

Lamarr Brown v. Kim Holland, Warden

satisfy his response obligation by simply filing his First Amended Petition; indeed, this
course of action is preferable, as it will move this case forward.
Petitioner is cautioned that the failure to comply with this Order To Show Cause
on a timely basis – whether by filing a response or, preferably, filing his First Amended
Petition – may be found to warrant dismissal under Rule 41(b) and result in the dismissal
of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of preparer __efc__
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2