CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV 19-01871-JFW (AS) Date November 6, 2019 Title Jeffrey Geddes v. Orange County Judge Michael Murray, et al.

Present: The Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge Honorable Alma Felix N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: N/A N/A Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On September 30, 2019,Jeffrey Geddes (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

(“Petition”). (Docket Entry No. 1). On October 2, 2019, the Court issued an Order Requiring the Filing of a First Amended Petition or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Docket Entry No. 3). The Court screened the Petition and found it deficient in the following respects: (1) It is not clear whether Petitioner is attempting to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (pursuant to

), or some other pleading (i.e., a civil rights action pursuant to

); (2) Petitioner has failed to plainly state “[t]he statutory or other basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court,” in violation of Central District Local Rule 8-1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a); (3) The Court is unable to discern what claim(s) Petitioner intends to assert; (4) Petitioner has alleged vague and conclusory “claims,” in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a) and 8(d); and (5) To the extent that Petitioner is attempting to file a federal habeas petition pursuant to

, Petitioner does not appear to be challenging the manner, location or condition of his sentence’s execution.

. The Court ordered Petitioner to file, by no later than October 23, 2019, either a First CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV 19-01871-JFW (AS) Date November 6, 2019 Title Jeffrey Geddes v. Orange County Judge Michael Murray, et al. Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody, pursuant to

(“First Amended Petition”) on the proper Central District of California form, a copy of which was provided to Petitioner, or a Notice of Dismissal (to the extent that Petitioner was attempting to file a civil rights action pursuant to

), a copy of which was attached to the Order.

. Petitioner was instructed that the First Amended Petition “should set forth clearly each claim which Petitioner intends to raise in this proceeding and the factual bases for each claim.”

. The Court’s October 2, 2019 stated the following: “Petitioner is advised that his failure to comply with the above requirements may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order and/or failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 41(b).”

at 2 (citing to Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002)). To date, Petitioner has failed to file either a First Amended Petition or a Notice of Dismissal. Therefore, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order (by no later than December 6, 2019), why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and/or prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Petitioner may discharge this Order by filing either a First Amended Petition which complies with the Court’s October 2, 2019 Order or a Notice of Dismissal which complies with the Court’s October 2, 2019 Order, or a statement setting forth why he is unable to do so. A copy of the Court’s October 2, 2019 Order is attached. Petitioner is expressly warned that the failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for his failure to comply with Court orders and/or for his failure to prosecute. See Fed.R. Civ. P. 41(b). 0 : 0 Initials of Preparer AF