Weaver v. Barnes

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/22/2014 DENYING petitioner's 13 , 14 , 15 motions; within 21 days, petitioner shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition; failure to comply will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE WEAVER,

12

No. 2:14-cv-0026-LKK-EFB P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

R. E. BARNES,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 15,

18

2014, the court directed respondent to file a response the petition within 60 days. ECF No. 4.

19

Respondent timely filed and served a motion to dismiss on March 17, 2014. ECF No. 11; see

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (when filing deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the

21

period for filing continues to run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal

22

holiday). Petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to respondent’s

23

motion to dismiss. He has, however, filed three motions arguing that respondent is in default and

24

that he should be released from custody as a result. ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15.

25

Because respondent’s motion was timely filed, petitioner’s requests for entry of default

26

are denied. Moreover, petitioner is hereby informed that a responding party’s failure “to file an

27

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

28

the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” L. R. 230(l). Failure to
1

1

comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of

2

any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” L.

3

R. 110. The court may dismiss this action with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party

4

disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir.

5

1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing

6

to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se

8

plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

9

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

10

1. Petitioner’s motions (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15) are denied.

11

2. Within 21 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file either an opposition to the

12
13
14
15

motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition.
3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be
dismissed.
Dated: April 22, 2014.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2