Grigsby v. Mungia

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/24/2016 DENYING petitioner's 15 , 16 motions for default judgment. Within 21 days, petitioner shall file either an oppostion to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. Failure to comply may 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

JONATHAN WESLEY GRIGSBY,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1105-MCE-EFB P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

M. MUNIGA,

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. On October 3, 2016, respondent timely filed a motion to dismiss on the

19

grounds that the petition is time barred, unexhausted and contains claims that are not cognizable

20

in federal habeas. See ECF Nos. 13, 14. Petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of

21

no opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss.1

22

A responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition

23

may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the

24

imposition of sanctions.” L. R. 230(l). Failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules

25

“may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or

26

Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” L. R. 110. The court may dismiss this action

27
28

1

Instead, petitioner has moved for default judgment. ECF Nos. 15, 16. Because
respondent’s motion was timely filed, petitioner’s requests are denied.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

7

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

8

1. Petitioner’s motions (ECF Nos. 15 & 16) are denied.

9

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

10
11
12
13

motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition.
3. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be
dismissed.
Dated: October 24, 2016.

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