Perez v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 7

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 a Order of the Court re 5 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/23/13. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MARK LEON PEREZ,

13

Petitioner,

14
v.
15
ON HABEAS CORPUS,
16
Respondent.
17

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

1:12-cv—01920-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)

18
19

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

21

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

22

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

23

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case,

24

including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in

25

a signed writing filed by Petitioner on December 12, 2012 (doc.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

26
27
28

1

Although Petitioner has submitted his petition on a form for prisoners
proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court notes that Petitioner is
serving a sentence imposed by a state court. Thus, the Court understands
Petitioner to be proceeding pursuant to § 2254.

1

1

6).

2

Petitioner filed the petition on November 27, 2012.

3

December 7, 2012, the Court issued an initial screening order

4

with respect to the petition in which the Court noted that

5

Petitioner had not named the proper respondent and granted

6

Petitioner leave to file a motion to amend the petition and name

7

a proper respondent no later than thirty (30) days after the date

8

of service of the order.

9

failure to move to amend the petition and state a proper

On

The order warned Petitioner that a

10

respondent would result in a recommendation that the petition be

11

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

12

on Petitioner on December 7, 2012.

13

The order was served by mail

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

14

neither filed a motion to amend the petition nor timely sought an

15

extension of time in which to file a motion to amend the

16

petition.

17

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

18

sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of

19

the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20

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

21

31, 42-43 (1991).

Fed. R. Civ.

22

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

23

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

24

service of this order, Petitioner shall show cause why this

25

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

26

order of December 7, 2012; Petitioner shall show cause in writing

27

because the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary;

28

and
2

1
2

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

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
ie14hj

January 23, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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