(HC) Blanc v. Taylor

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUKNER BLANC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01212-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES AND TO OBEY A COURT 14 T. TAYLOR, ORDER

15 Respondent. (Docs. 5, 18)

16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Petitioner Lukner Banc (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On October 20 11, 2024, because the Court found Petitioner’s petition properly cognizable under § 2241, and the Court 21 has jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the petition, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response 22 addressing the merits or seeking dismissal of the petition within 60 days of the date of service of the 23 order. (Doc. 5 at 2). Petitioner was ordered therein to file a traverse, if any, on or before 30 days from 24 the date Respondent’s Answer is filed, i.e., April 23, 2025. (Id.). The parties were advised that all 25 provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to the order. (Id. at 3); see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 26 Respondent timely filed a motion to dismiss the habeas petition on March 24, 2025. (Doc. 18). 27 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that “[f]ailure 28 of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 1 || imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cz 2 || Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of th 3 || power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angel 4 || County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure 5 || prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 6 || F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend 7 || complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failu 8 || to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismiss 9 || for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 10 Here, Petitioner’s traverse or statement of non-opposition to Respondent’s pending motion 11 || dismiss was due on or before April 23, 2025. Petitioner has failed to file either a traverse or stateme 12 || of non-opposition to the pending motion, and the time to do so has now passed. 13 Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of service | 16 this order why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Court 17 order and the Local Rules, as set forth herein, Alternatively, Petitioner may comply wi 18 this order by filing by that same deadline either a traverse or a statement of non-oppositic 19 to the pending motion to dismiss filed on March 24, 2025 (Doc. 18). Any failure | 20 Petitioner to timely respond to this Order may result in the recommendation that th 21 action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Loc 22 Rules and to obey a court order. 23 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | } ) | 2 Dated: _ April 30, 2025 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28