Ramirez v. Davey

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the Stay of Proceedings should not be Lifted due to Petitioner's Failure to File Regular Status Reports,signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/03/2016. (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELEAZAR RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

DAVE DAVEY,

15

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01072-LJO-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE LIFTED DUE
TO PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FILE
REGULAR STATUS REPORTS
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

On August 6, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings in order to

18

exhaust claims in state court. (Doc. 10). In that order, the Court notified Petitioner that he was

19

required to file regular status reports at sixty-day intervals. A review of the docket in this case shows

20

that Petitioner last filed a status report on August 12, 2015, over five months ago.

21

Local Rule 110 provides that “a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

22

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all

23

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with the

24

order of the Court regarding regular filing of status reports. The Court emphasizes that the regular

25

filing of status reports keeps the Court informed regarding whether or not Petitioner is still

26

actively pursuing his case. Even when there is nothing substantive to report to the Court, a status

27

report, indicating that there is nothing substantive to report to the Court, is required. In that way,

28

the Court can monitor stayed cases and insure that those cases do not become stale.
1

1

Also, in accessing the state court’s electronic database, it appears that Petitioner’s state habeas

2

in case no. S228231 was denied by the California Supreme Court on November 10, 2015, yet Petitioner

3

has not notified the Court of that fact nor requested leave to file an amended petition containing the

4

newly exhausted claims. Petitioner’s failure to do so could be construed as a lack of diligence in

5

pursuing habeas relief that would subject him to sanctions. Petitioner is advised to notify the Court

6

immediately of the status of his case and how he wishes to proceed.
ORDER

7
8

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

9

1. Within 30 days, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to show cause in writing why the stay

10

should not be lifted due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s order to regularly

11

file status reports.

12
13

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in an order
lifting the stay pursuant to Local Rule 110.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 3, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2