UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 4, 2009
WADE KNIGHT, PETITIONER,
H. A. RIOS, JR., RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RESPONDENT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2009
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN TEN DAYS
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On May 14, 2009, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and Recommendation recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because the Petition should have been filed as a motion for reconsideration in the trial court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 3). The Findings and Recommendations was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. On May 26, 2009, Petitioner requested an extension of time to file his objections. (Doc. 4). However, before the Court could rule on that motion, Petitioner, on June 1, 2009, filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations, in which Petitioner contends that he has "newly discovered evidence" regarding his claim of perjury by a police officer that contributed to his conviction. (Doc. 6).
After further review, on September 4, 2009, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response to Petitioner's objections regarding "newly discovered evidence" within thirty days. (Doc. 11). To date, Respondent has not responded in any fashion to the Court's order. Instead, Petitioner has filed both a request for entry of default (Doc. 12) and a motion for entry of default (Doc. 13), both based on Respondent's failure to comply with the Court's September 4, 2009 order.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
1. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days of the date of service of this Order why Respondent has not complied with the Court's order of September 4, 2009.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.