Saesee v. People of the State of California

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why case should not be dismissed for failure to file motion to amend petition and follow court order 5 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/12/2010. (Show Cause Response due by 8/5/2010.)(Marrujo, C)

(HC) Saesee v. People of the State of California

Doc. 10

1 2 3 4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 21 Petitioner filed the petition on May 11, 2010. 22 2010, the Court issued an initial screening order with respect to 23 the petition in which the Court noted that Petitioner had not 24 named the proper respondent and granted Petitioner leave to file 25 a motion to amend the petition and name a proper respondent no 26 later than thirty (30) days after the date of service of the 27 order. 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

SMITH SAESEE, Petitioner,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:10-cv--0814-AWI-SKO-HC ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION AND TO FOLLOW AN ORDER OF THE COURT (DOC. 5)

On May 25,

The order warned Petitioner that a failure to move to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

amend the petition and state a proper respondent would result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 25, 2010. To date, over thirty (30) days have passed, but Petitioner has neither filed a motion to amend the petition nor timely sought an extension of time in which to file a motion to amend the petition. A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. The order was served by mail on Petitioner on May

P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. No later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court's order of May 25, 2010; Petitioner shall show cause in writing because the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary; and 2. The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj July 12, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2