Whittier Em v. Warden

Filing 38

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick: It is Petitioner's responsibility to comply with the Court's orders and to prosecute this action diligently. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Petitioner to show cause in writing no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. [SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.] (es)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
claims. The proposed Second Amended Petition must be complete in and of
itself, and must not incorporate by reference any other pleading.
Id. at 2. Petitioner has not complied with these requirements. From a review of publicly available
records, it appears that Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court in
March 2022, which the California Supreme Court denied in July 2022, before the Court ruled on
Petitioner’s motion for a stay in this case. See California Appellate Courts Case Information,
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0 (search by case number “S273605”)
(last accessed May 6, 2024). It is unclear whether Petitioner presented each of his unexhausted
claims in that petition. Regardless, Petitioner did not notify the Court of his habeas proceedings
before the California Supreme Court or lodge copies of any documents from those proceedings.
Indeed, Petitioner has not taken any action in this case since the Court granted his stay request.
It is Petitioner’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and to prosecute this action
diligently. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Petitioner to show cause in writing no
later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order why this action should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution. If Petitioner exhausted his unexhausted claims via the state
court habeas proceedings referenced above, then Petitioner may discharge this order by filing
each the following: (1) a copy of his California Supreme Court habeas petition; (2) a copy of the
California Supreme Court’s denial; and (3) a motion to amend the petition, accompanied by a
proposed Second Amended Petition that alleges the currently exhausted and newly exhausted
claims.1

According to publicly available records, Petitioner is currently in custody at California
State Prison Solano, a different facility than his address of record. Under Local Civil Rule 41-6,
Petitioner must keep the Court informed of his current address. Failure to do so may result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 41-6.
1

The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at both his address of record
and California State Prison Solano, P.O. Box 4000, Vacaville, CA 95696-4000.
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk: nb

Page 2 of 2