Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Deo v. Martel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 14, 2009

RAVIND ROUSHAN DEO, PETITIONER,
v.
M. MARTEL, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 29, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for clarification of the court's June 16, 2009 order to show cause.

Petitioner is advised that, on May 7, 2009, respondent filed a motion to dismiss his petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . ." If petitioner does not want the court to dismiss his petition, he should file an opposition to respondent's motion, explaining why the court should not dismiss his petition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court's June 16, 2009 order to show cause is discharged;

2. Petitioner's June 29, 2009 motion for clarification (Doc. No. 17) is granted; and

3. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, petitioner shall file and serve an opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss.

20090714

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.