Degroff v. Beard

Filing 15

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/27/13 ORDERING that Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute J. Price, Acting Warden, as the respondent; and Petitioner show cause, within thirty days, why his failure to oppose respondents October 17, 2013 motion to dismiss should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion, and he shall file an opposition.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW JAMES DEGROFF,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1638 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

J. PRICE, 1

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 17, 2013, respondent filed a motion to dismiss

19

this action as barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the

20

motion. Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

21

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

22

the granting of the motion . . . .”

23

////

24
1

25
26
27
28

In his petition, petitioner named Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation as the respondent. The court now substitutes in the correct
respondent, J. Price, the Acting Warden of Deuel Vocational Institution, where petitioner is
presently incarcerated. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994)
(citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254) (“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the
state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition”). See also Smith v.
Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355-56 (9th Cir. 2004)
1

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute J. Price, Acting Warden, as the

3

respondent; and

4

2. Petitioner show cause, within thirty days, why his failure to oppose respondent’s

5

October 17, 2013 motion to dismiss should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the

6

granting of the motion, and he shall file an opposition. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to

7

respond to the instant order, or to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, will result

8

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

9

Dated: November 27, 2013

10
11

/degr1638.46h

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2