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.

Jorge Bautista v. Kelly Harrington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION


October 19, 2011

JORGE BAUTISTA
v.
KELLY HARRINGTON

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Andrew J. Wistrich, Magistrate Judge

CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL

Title:

PRESENT: HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Ysela Benavides Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

None Present None Present

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On June 23, 2010, petitioner filed a motion seeking a stay of this case so that he could exhaust his state remedies with respect to additional claims for relief. His motion was granted on June 25, 2010, and petitioner was directed to file and serve periodic status reports informing the Court of his progress. Petitioner, however, has never filed a status report.

On November 17, 2010, after petitioner had failed to file and serve a single status report, the Court issued another order recognizing that petitioner may not have received the June 25, 2010 order, and directing him to file a status report every twenty-eight days until he has exhausted his state remedies. Petitioner was cautioned that his failure to comply with that order could result in dismissal of the unexhausted claims.

Petitioner filed a status report on December 17, 2010, in which he indicated that he had filed a habeas petition in the California Superior Court and the petition was denied on August 24, 2010. Petitioner filed status reports on January 13, 2011 and March 14, 2011. Petitioner's last status report was filed on May 2, 2011 -- more than five months ago. The status report indicates that petitioner intended to file a petition in the California Supreme Court, but had not yet done so. Reference to the docket of the California Supreme Court reveals that, as of the date of this order, petitioner still has not filed a petition in that court.

Petitioner shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order to show cause why the stay should not be vacated and his unexhausted claims deemed dismissed based upon petitioner's failure to prosecute or comply with the Court's order. Petitioner's failure to timely reply will be deemed his consent to the vacating of the stay and the matter will proceed on the basis of the petition already filed in this case without the unexhausted claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc:

Parties

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk________ CIVIL-GEN

20111019

© 1992-2011 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.