Romero

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/23/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Case No. 15-cv-05324 MEJ

In re CECILIO LARA ROMERO,
Petitioner

9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
INTRODUCTION

14

Petitioner, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Taft Modified Community Correctional

15
16

Facility, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging

17

a conviction from Contra Costa County Superior Court. For the reasons set forth below, this

18

petition is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
DISCUSSION

19

According to the petition, Petitioner was found guilty of unspecified crimes, and, on or

20
21

about August 31, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to jail. Docket No. 5 (“Pet.”) at 1–2. Petitioner

22

does not specify the length of his sentence. Id. at 1. Petitioner appealed his conviction and

23

sentence, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2013. Id. at

24

2–3.

25

On November 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a letter with this Court. Docket No. 1. That same

26

day, the Clerk of the Court informed Petitioner that he should submit his petition for a writ of

27

habeas corpus on the proper form. Docket No. 2. On February 10, 2105, Petitioner filed the

28

instant federal habeas petition. Docket No. 5.

1

On April 12, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause by May 12,

2

2016, why the petition should not be either (1) dismissed for failure to exhaust the claims in state

3

court, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c), see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c) (prisoners in state

4

custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length

5

of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or

6

through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair

7

opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court); see

8

also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every claim raised in federal habeas

9

petition must be exhausted); or dismissed as untimely, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
Docket No. 9. Plaintiff was cautioned that if he failed to respond in accordance with this order,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the action would be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to

12

prosecute. Id. at 5. The deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file any responsive

13

pleading, or otherwise communicate with the Court. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED

14

without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
CONCLUSION

15
16
17
18

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s deadlines and order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: May 23, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2