Castro v. Cash

Filing 7

ORDER to PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE no Later than Twenty-One (21) Days after Service of this Order Why the Action Should not be Dismissed for Petitioner's Failure to Follow the Order of the Court and Prosecute the Action signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 05/17/2011. Show Cause Response due by 6/10/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
ISIDRO CASTRO,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
14
15

v.
B. M. CASH, Warden,
Respondent.

16

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

1:11-cv—00441-SKO-HC
ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE
NO LATER THAN TWENTY-ONE (21)
DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR PETITIONER’S
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF
THE COURT AND PROSECUTE THE
ACTION (Docs. 5, 1)

17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
19
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The matter has been referred to the

20
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
21
Rules 302 through 304.

Pending before the Court is the petition,

22
which was filed on March 16, 2011.
23
By order filed and served on Petitioner by mail on March 28,
24
2011, the Court directed Petitioner to respond to the Court’s
25
screening order and inform the Court if he was attempting to
26
raise a claim concerning the ineffective assistance of counsel
27
and, if so, to show cause why the petition should not be
28
1

1

dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court

2

remedies as to such claim.

3

that failure to follow this order would result in dismissal of

4

the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

The order expressly warned Petitioner

5

More than thirty days have passed, but Petitioner has

6

neither responded to the Court’s order and order to show cause

7

nor sought an extension of time within which to respond.

8

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

9

sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of

10

the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

11

P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.

12

31, 42-43 (1991).

Fed. R. Civ.

13

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

14

1. No later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of

15

service of this order, Petitioner shall show cause why this

16

action should not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s

17

order of March 28, 2011; Petitioner shall show cause in writing

18

because the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary;

19

and

20
21

2. Petitioner is INFORMED that the failure to respond to
this order will result in dismissal of the action.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
ie14hj

May 17, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2