Johnson v. Ives

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/27/2010. Within 21 days from date this Order, respondent shall file and serve an Answer to Habeas Corpus Petition or Motion to Dismiss. Respondent shall SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file the Answer or Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner's 12 Motion for Judgment is DENIED. (Marciel, M)

(HC) Johnson v. Ives

Doc. 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. RICHARD B. IVES, Warden, Respondent. / Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By order filed April 29, 2010, respondent was ordered to file, within sixty days, an answer to the instant petition or a motion to dismiss. Respondent has not filed an answer to the petition or a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court will direct respondent once again to file a responsive pleading in this matter. In addition, respondent will be required to show cause in writing why the court should not impose sanctions due to respondent's failure to comply with its April 29, 2010 order. Also pending before the court is petitioner's motion for judgment in his favor in light of respondent's failure to comply with the court's order. Petitioner is advised that he is not entitled to a default judgment due to the failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for a writ 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY SCOTT JOHNSON, Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-0371 DAD P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of habeas corpus. See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990). Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order respondent shall file and serve an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion to dismiss and shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to timely file the answer or motion to dismiss; and 2. Petitioner's September 15, 2010 motion for judgment (Doc. No. 12) is denied. DATED: October 27, 2010.

DAD:9 john0371.102

2