Vernell Cephus v. Donald S. Kennedy

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed as a fully unexhausted petition. Petitioner must file a response to this Order withing twenty (20) days of the date of this Order (by no later than March 27, 2017). (Attachments: # 1 Courts February 1, 2017 Minute Order) (afe)

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

CV 17-00638-PA (AS)

Title

Cephus, Vernell v. Donald, S. Kennedy

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 7, 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

On January 26, 2017, Vernell Cephus (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Docket
Entry No. 1). The Petition asserts the following grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) “[T]he
Municipal Court had no jurisdiction to act on defendant’s case for more than three years.”;
and (2) “They have no right to hold me over 3 years.” (Petition at 5-6).
On February 1, 2017, the Court issued a Minute Order requiring Petitioner to select,
by February 21, 2017, one of two options, because (as Petitioner had conceded) both grounds
alleged in the Petition were unexhausted. (Docket Entry No. 4). Specifically, the Court
ordered Petitioner to either: (1) voluntarily dismiss the entire action without prejudice; or (2)
request a stay of the Petition, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005),
while he returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. Id. at 2-3. Petitioner was
expressly warned that his failure to file a timely response to the Court’s February 1, 2017
Minute Order might result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice
for his failure to prosecute and/or obey Court orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Id. at
3. Petitioner further was expressly warned that his failure to select one of the two options
identified in the Court’s February 1, 2017 Minute Order might result in the dismissal of the
Petition as a fully unexhausted petition. Id.
As of today’s date, Petitioner has failed to file a Response to the Court’s February 1,
2017 Minute Order.
Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this
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 17-00638-PA (AS)

Date

Title

March 7, 2017

Cephus, Vernell v. Donald, S. Kennedy

action should not be dismissed as a fully unexhausted petition.
Petitioner may file a response to this Order by availing himself of one of the two
options set forth in the Court’s February 1, 2017 Minute Order: (1) voluntary dismissal of
the entire action without prejudice; or (2) moving for a stay of this action pursuant to Rhines
v. Weber, supra, while he returns to the state courts to exhaust the unexhausted claims, as
identified above.
Information regarding the requirements for, and potential consequences of, each of
these options are explained in the Court’s February 1, 2017 Minute Order, a copy of which
is attached.
Petitioner must file a response to this Order withing twenty (20) days of the date of
this Order (by no later than March 27, 2017) .
Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this Order will result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for his failure to
prosecute and/or comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and/or
dismissal without prejudice as a fully unexhausted petition.

0

:

0
0

Initials of

AF

Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2