(HC) Stone v. Pfieffer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00095
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM JAY STONE, No. 1:23-cv-00095-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT 14 C. PFIEFFER, OF NON-OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Respondent. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Background 19 Petitioner Adam Jay Stone (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Following a preliminary 21 review of the petition and finding that it is not clear from the face of the petition whether 22 Petitioner is entitled to relief, on June 11, 2025, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response 23 to Petitioner’s petition within 60 days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 4). The same 24 order instructed Petitioner that his traverse to any answer or opposition to any motion to dismiss 25 was due within 30 days from the date of Respondent’s filing. (Id. at 2). 26 On July 22, 2025, Respondent timely filed a motion to dismiss the petition, making 27 Petitioner’s opposition due on or before August 25, 2025. (Doc. 6; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1) & (d)). 28 Respondent’s motion includes a proof of service reflecting that a copy of the motion was served 1 on Petitioner. (Id. at 11). Petitioner has not filed any opposition to the pending motion to 2 dismiss, and the time to do so has now passed. 3 Order to Show Cause 4 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 5 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 6 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 7 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 8 may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 9 action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss 10 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with 11 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 12 failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 13 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 14 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 15 with local rules). 16 Here, Petitioner’s opposition/traverse or statement of non-opposition to Respondent’s 17 pending motion to dismiss was due on or before August 22, 2025. Petitioner has failed to file 18 either a traverse or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and the time to do so has 19 now passed. Accordingly, the Court will direct Petitioner to show cause in writing why sanctions 20 should not be imposed for failure to comply with a court order. Petitioner will be permitted to 21 comply with this order to show cause in the alternative by filing an opposition or statement of 22 non-opposition. 23 Conclusion and Order 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Petitioner shall show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of service of this 26 order why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Court’s 27 order and the Local Rules, as set forth herein. Alternatively, Petitioner may comply 28 with this order by filing by that same deadline either an opposition/traverse or a 1 statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss filed on July 22, 2025 2 (Doc. 6). 3 2. Any failure by Petitioner to timely respond to this Order may result in the 4 recommendation that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Petitioner’s 5 failure to comply with the Local Rules and to obey a court order. © | Ir IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 27, 2025 | hwrnrD Pr 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28