IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 28, 2010
WAYLON PITCHFORD, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding before the undersigned with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Consents to Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge filed February 2, 2010 and April 13, 2010. On May 14, 2010, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action as barred by the statute of limitations. On May 17, 2010, petitioner was served with a notice setting a briefing schedule on the motion, pursuant to which his opposition to the motion, if any, was due within twenty-one days. Petitioner has not opposed the motion.
Petitioner is hereby advised that Local Rule 230(l) 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...." Petitioner is further advised that Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.