Carrillo v. Placer County Superior Court

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/31/15 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED and the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAY CARRILLO,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1461-EFB P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

21

On July 15, 2015, the court reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

22

Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court found that petitioner had not properly completed the

23

form petition by responding to the questions raised therein. As drafted, the court was unable to

24

determine the nature of petitioner’s intended grounds for relief or discharge its duty under Rule 4.

25

ECF No. 10. The order granted petitioner thirty days in which to file an amended petition and

26

warned him that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time for

27

acting has passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition, or otherwise responded to the

28

court’s order.
1

1

A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

2

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

3

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or

4

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.

5

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

6

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended

7

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

8

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

9

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

10

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED and the court

11

declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

12

Dated: August 31, 2015.

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