IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 19, 2011
ROGER SCHNEIDER, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. This habeas corpus action was filed June 9, 2008, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which challenges a 2005 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings denying petitioner parole.*fn1 Presently pending is respondent's motion to dismiss, filed December 8, 2010, on the ground that the petition was untimely filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Petitioner has twice sought and obtained extensions of time within which to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 22.) The last extension of time, to May 6, 2011, has passed, and petitioner has not filed an opposition or otherwise communicated with the court.
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 . . . ."
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner show cause, within fourteen days, why his failure to oppose respondent's December 8, 2010 motion to dismiss should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion, and shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Failure of petitioner to timely respond to this order, or to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, will be construed as abandonment of this action and result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.