Hoffman v. Bosenko

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/2/2017 DISMISSING this action. The court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Henshaw, R) Modified on 5/3/2017 (Donati, J).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KASEY FREDERICK HOFFMAN, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. 2:16-cv-1013-EFB P v. ORDER TOM BOSENKO, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner was a pretrial detainee at that time he commenced this proceeding without 17 counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This proceeding was 18 referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the 19 undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local 20 Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 21 On March 22, 2017, the court reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court found petitioner failed to assert that he is in custody in 23 violation of federal law, or challenge the length or execution of his sentence. ECF No. 6. 24 Accordingly, the court granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition and warned him 25 that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed 26 and petitioner has not filed an amended petition, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 27 ///// 28 ///// 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: May 2, 2017. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?