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.

Thomas Michael Clark v. G. Swarthout

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


December 3, 2012

THOMAS MICHAEL CLARK, PETITIONER,
v.
G. SWARTHOUT, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 12, 2012, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Despite an additional thirty-day extension of time granted on October 24, 2012, petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss.

A responding party's failure "to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions." L. R. 230(l). Failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." L. R. 110. The court may dismiss this action with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. Given that petitioner has already received a lengthy extension of time to oppose the motion, the court is not inclined to grant any further extensions. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

20121203

© 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.