McCann v. Hill

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/13/11 ORDERING that within 21 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file and serve an opposition to respondents motion to dismiss and shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to file a timely opposition. In the alternative, if petitioner no longer wishes to proceed with this matter, he should file a request to dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL McCANN, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 vs. RICK HILL, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 ORDER / 16 17 No. CIV S-11-1463 DAD P Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 On August 4, 2011, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner has not filed 19 an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party 20 to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any 21 opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” 22 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of 23 the date of this order, petitioner shall file and serve an opposition to respondent’s motion to 24 dismiss and shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to 25 file a timely opposition. In the alternative, if petitioner no longer wishes to proceed with this 26 ///// 1 1 matter, he should file a request to dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of 2 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 DATED: September 13, 2011. 4 5 6 DAD:9 mcca1463.102 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?