IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 15, 2010
RICHARD L. ISGRIGG, PETITIONER,
CDCR, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action.
On November 23, 2009, the court dismissed petitioner's petition with leave to file an amended petition which named the proper respondent . On April 22, 2010, the court directed Petitioner to show cause in writing, within 30 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended petition. Petitioner was warned that failure to respond to the order may result in dismissal of the action for these reasons, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. To date, Petitioner has not responded.
The court, therefore, finds it appropriate to dismiss this action for Petitioner's failure to file an amended petition, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal and close this file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.