Willie Tatum v. Warden

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. Date: September 11, 2025 Title Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE VELASCO N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On June 22, 2025, Petitioner Willie Tatum (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, constructively filed1 a habeas petition. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. The Court then screened the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4. On July 21, 2025 the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed (“OSC”) for lack of jurisdiction, untimeliness, and failure to exhaust state remedies. Dkt. 4. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s OSC.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to respond within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, by September 29, 2025. The Court warns Petitioner that failure to timely respond will result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined in the Court’s OSC.

IT IS SO ORDERED. : Initials of Preparer vv

1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).