Antoine Denell Jordan v. M. Atchley

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before June 28, 2021 why the action should not be dismissed under Local Rule 7-12 and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (see document for further details) (hr)

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

CV 20-5070-SVW (KS)

Date: June 7, 2021

Antoine Denell Jordan v. M. Atchley

Present: The Honorable:

Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Gay Roberson
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioners:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

On June 8, 2020, Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). (Dkt.
No. 1.) On April 14, 2021, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) on the
grounds that the claims presented in the Petition are untimely (Dkt. No. 22) and lodged
relevant state court records (Dkt. No. 23). Pursuant to the Court’s January 4, 2021 Order,
Petitioner’s Opposition to that Motion was due within 30 days of the service of the
Motion—that is, no later than May 14, 2021. (See Dkt. No. 15 at 3.)
Three weeks have now passed since the date on which Petitioner’s opposition was
due, and Petitioner has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. Local Rule 7-12
states that a party’s failure to file a required document such as an opposition to a motion
“may be deemed consent to the granting [ ] of the motion.” Further, pursuant to Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action may be subject to involuntary dismissal
if a Petitioner “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Thus, the
Court could properly recommend dismissal of the action for Petitioner’s failure to oppose
the Motion and timely comply with the Court’s orders.
However, in the interests of justice, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before June 28, 2021 why the action should not be dismissed under Local Rule 712 and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In order to discharge this Order
and proceed with this action, Petitioner must file by the June 28, 2021 deadline one of the
following: (1) a complete and detailed opposition (in a manner fully complying with the
Local Rules) to the Motion to Dismiss; or (2) a request for an extension of time to file the

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 20-5070-SVW (KS)

Date: June 7, 2021

Antoine Denell Jordan v. M. Atchley

Opposition accompanied by a sworn declaration (not to exceed 3 pages) establishing good
cause for Petitioner’s failure to timely respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
Alternatively, Petitioner may discharge this Order and dismiss this case by filing a
signed document entitled a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” requesting the voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Petitioner is cautioned that his failure to timely comply with this order will lead
to a recommendation of dismissal based on Local Rule 7-12 and Rule 41 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

gr

Page 2 of 2