Enoch Conners v. Warden
Filing
6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, or by no later than April 17, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Court orders and/or for his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (See Order for complete details) (Attachments: # 1 Courts January 31, 2017 Order, # 2 Notice of Dismissal (Blank)) (afe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-00583-R (AS)
Title
Enoch Conners v. Warden
Present: The
Honorable
Date
March 17, 2017
Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge
Alma Felix
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Petitioner
Attorneys Present for Respondent:
N/A
N/A
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
On January 24, 2017, Petitioner Enoch Conners filed an undated letter (Docket Entry
No. 1), seeking to file a “Motion for Time Credit” in order to receive credit for all of the time
of his incarceration. On January 31, 2017, the Court issued an Order directing Petitioner to
file, by no later than later than February 21, 2017, a First Amended Petition on the Central
District of California form setting forth “clearly each claim which Petitioner intends to raise
in this proceeding and the factual bases for each claim.” (Docket Entry No. 3).
The Court’s January 31, 2017 Order stated the following: “ Petitioner is advised that
his failure to comply with the above requirements may result in a recommendation that this
action be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and/or for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).” Id. at 2 (citing to Pagtalunan v. Golaza, 291 F.3d
639 (9th Cir. 2002)).
As of today, however, Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court’s January 31, 2017
Order.1
1
The Court notes that Petitioner attempted to file a “Motion for Time Credit on
Habeas Corpus,” but that the Court rejected it based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with
the Court’s January 31, 2017 Order stating that Petitioner’s First Amended Petition must be
on the proper Central District Form (which was provided to Petitioner). (Docket Entry No.
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 17-00583-R (AS)
Title
Date
March 17, 2017
Enoch Conners v. Warden
Therefore, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within thirty (30) days of
the date of this Order, or by no later than April 17, 2017 why this action should not be
dismissed for his failure to comply with Court orders and/or for his failure to prosecute
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Petitioner may discharge this Order by filing a First
Amended Petition that complies with the Court’s January 31, 2017 Order or a statement
setting forth why he is unable to do so. A copy of the Court’s January 31, 2017 Order is
attached.
Petitioner may also request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner’s
convenience. However, Petitioner is advised that any dismissed claims may be later subject
to the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as amended by AEDPA, which
provides that “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas
corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State Court.”
Petitioner is expressly warned that the failure to file a timely file a response to
this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice
for his failure to comply with Court orders and/or for his failure to prosecute. See
Fed.R. Civ. P. 41(b).
0
Initials of Preparer
:
0
AF
5).
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 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?