UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:19-cv-02468-SK Date October 18, 2019 Title Carlos Joe Espinosa v. G. Marshall

Present: The Honorable Steve Kim, U.S. Magistrate Judge Connie Chung n/a Deputy Clerk Court Smart / Recorder Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: None present None present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS On April 2, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition under

, challenging his 2015 conviction and sentence for assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, petty theft, and battery with serious bodily injury. (ECF 1). On August 29, 2019, Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition for untimeliness. (ECF 18). Petitioner’s opposition was due September 28, 2019 (ECF 9 at 2), but none has been filed as of today. Failure to oppose a motion to dismiss may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion. See L.R. 7-12. Petitioner also bears the burden to establish timeliness on any other ground that the Court may be unaware of. See Stancle v. Clay,

(9th Cir. 2012). And the failure to oppose the motion to dismiss may be construed as a failure to prosecute and obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b); L.R. 41-1. THEREFORE, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before November 18, 2019 why the Court should not dismiss the Petition for failure to file the required opposition, for untimeliness, and for lack of prosecution. Petitioner may discharge this order by filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss by no later than November 18, 2019. Alternatively, if Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal using the attached Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Form (CV-09). If Petitioner does not file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause, the Court may recommend involuntary or summary dismissal of this action.