Robles v. State of California

Filing 15

ORDER Directing Petitioner to SHOW CAUSE in Writing No Later than Twenty-One (21) Days After the Date of Service of this Order Why The Action Should Not be Dismissed For Failure to File A Completed 2254 Petition Form and to Follow an Order of the Court 1 , 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/3/11. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
GILBERT ROBLES, JR.,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
14

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15

Respondent.

16

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

1:11-cv—00620-SKO-HC
ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO
SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING NO LATER
THAN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER
WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE A
COMPLETED § 2254 PETITION FORM
AND TO FOLLOW AN ORDER OF THE
COURT (DOCS. 1, 9)

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
I.

Background

22
Petitioner filed the petition in the United States District
23
Court for the Northern District of California on January 5, 2011.
24
On March 4, 2011, the court issued an order in which it noted
25
that Petitioner, who had filed his action on a civil rights form,
26
appeared to be challenging a conviction; however, he had failed
27
to allege necessary information concerning exhaustion of state
28
1

1

court remedies.

2

evaluate the habeas action in its present state; it ordered the

3

case reclassified as a habeas corpus action, and it further

4

ordered Petitioner to file within thirty days a habeas petition

5

to be completed on an attached 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form.

6

stated that if Petitioner did not file a completed § 2254 habeas

7

petition form within the thirty-day deadline, the case would be

8

dismissed for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

9

The order was served by mail on Petitioner on March 4, 2011.

10

The court concluded that it could not fairly

The court

(Doc. 9, 5.)

11

To date, over thirty days have passed, but Petitioner has

12

neither filed a completed habeas petition form nor timely sought

13

an extension of time in which to file such a petition.

14

A failure to prosecute and comply with an order of the Court

15

may result in sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the

16

inherent power of the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil

17

Procedure.

18

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 110; Chambers

19

II.

20

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

21

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

Disposition

22

service of this order, Petitioner shall show cause why this

23

action should not be dismissed for failure to obey the order of

24

the United States District Court for the Northern District of

25

California of March 4, 2011; Petitioner shall show cause in

26

writing because the Court has determined that no hearing is

27

necessary; and

28

///
2

1
2

2. The failure to respond to this order will result in
dismissal of the action.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
ie14hj

May 3, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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