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.

Stephen A. Porter v. Richard Ives

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 6, 2012

STEPHEN A. PORTER, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD IVES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Movant is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This action is proceeding before a United States Magistrate Judge with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Consent filed June 3, 2010 (Doc. No. 6); Consent filed June 7, 2010 (Doc. No. 9).

On July 15, 2010, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the pending application for relief. Petitioner failed to timely file an opposition to the motion, and on September 7, 2010, the court ordered petitioner to file within twenty-one days either an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition. On December 7, 2010, this action was dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) due to petitioner's failure to comply with the September 7, 2010 order. Judgment was entered on the same day.

On April 11, 2011, petitioner filed a request to reopen this action. Therein, petitioner represents that he did not receive the court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel, but he makes no reference at all to respondents' motion to dismiss or the court's September 7, 2010 order directing him to file either an opposition to the motion dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. In light of petitioner's failure to address his lack of response to the September 7, 2010 order, and out of an abundance of caution, on February 8, 2012, this court issued an order granting petitioner an additional twenty-one days in which to supplement his request to reopen this action with a proposed opposition to respondents' motion to dismiss. Petitioner was also cautioned in that latest order that failure to comply with the order would result in the denial of his request to reopen this long-ago closed action. That twenty-one day period has expired and petitioner has not responded in any way to the court's February 8, 2012 order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's April 11, 2011 motion to reopen this action is denied.

20120306

© 1992-2012 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.