Schuster v. Johnson

Filing 44

ORDER Regarding Respondent's Failure to Respond to Court's May 18, 2015 Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/4/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARISSA SCHUSTER,

12

Petitioner,

13

Case No. 1:12-cv-01482-AWI-SAB
ORDER REGARDING RESPONDENT’S
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO COURT’S
MAY 18, 2015 ORDER

v.

14

DEBORAH K. JOHNSON,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

18 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
19

On May 8, 2015, Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with a

20 hearing set for May 20, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 40). On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an
21 order continuing the hearing on the motion to withdraw as counsel to June 15, 2015, at 10:00
22 a.m. (ECF No. 41.) The Court ordered Respondent to file an opposition or non-opposition on or
23 before June 1, 2015. (ECF No. 41.) Respondent failed to file her opposition or non-opposition.
24 On June 3, 2015, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing set for June 15, 2015, and took
25 the matter under submission. (ECF No. 42). The Court indicated that it would issue an order to
26 show cause in a separate order.
27

Before the Court could issue an order for Respondent to show cause why sanctions

28 should not be imposed for failing to obey a court order, Respondent submitted a statement in

1

1 contemplation of the indicated order to show cause. (ECF No. 43). Respondent’s counsel
2 admitted that he failed to comply with the order to file an opposition or non-opposition to
3 Petitioner’s motion to withdraw as counsel and apologized to the Court. (ECF No. 43 at 2).
4 Respondent’s counsel states that he overlooked or forgot the part of the Court’s order directing
5 the filing of the opposition or non-opposition. (ECF No. 43 at 3). Respondent’s counsel is
6 advised that he must carefully read the Court’s orders and comply with the Court’s orders.
Accordingly, based upon Respondent’s statement in contemplation of the indicated order

7

8 to show cause and based upon the explanation, the Court will not issue an order to show cause in
9 this matter.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

June 4, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2