James Arthur Edwards v. Jeffrey Beard

Filing 44

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/7/2016. Petitioners opposition was due on August 10, 2016. Seven days have now passed since the date on which Petitioners opposition w as due, and Petitioner has not filed a response to the Motion To Dismiss. Petitioner is cautioned that his failure to respond to this order may lead the Court to recommend dismissal based on Local Rules 7-12 and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (rh)

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

EDCV 14-848-VAP (KS)

Date: August 17, 2016

James Arthur Edwards v. Jeffrey Beard

Present: The Honorable:

Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Roxanne Horan-Walker
Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioners:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

On April 29, 2014, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition
For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The matter was stayed from May
29, 2014 until June 13, 2016. (See Dkt. Nos. 7, 37.) On July 11, 2016, Respondent
moved to dismiss the Petition as untimely. (Dkt. No. 39.) The Court’s Order of May 2,
2014 directed Petitioner to file an opposition, if any, to a motion to dismiss within 30
days of the date of service thereof. (Dkt. No. 4 at 3.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s
opposition was due on August 10, 2016.
Seven days 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 To Dismiss and to timely comply with the Court’s Order of May 2,
2014.
However, in the interests of justice, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before September 7, 2016 why the action should not be dismissed under Local
Rule 7-12 and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner’s response

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

EDCV 14-848-VAP (KS)

Date: August 17, 2016

James Arthur Edwards v. Jeffrey Beard

to this OSC must include either: (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 to file the 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 respond to this order may lead the
Court to recommend dismissal based on Local Rules 7-12 and Rule 41 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

rhw

Page 2 of 2