CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. EDCV 20-00010-GW (AS) Date February 11, 2020 Title Andre Luiz Costa Soares v. GEO, 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 January 2, 2020, Andre Luiz Costa Joanes (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

(“Petition”). (Docket Entry No. 1). On January 6, 2020, 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 identify the Respondents; (3) 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); (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. (Docket Entry No. 3 at 1). Petitioner was ordered to file, by no later than January 27, 2020, either a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. EDCV 20-00010-GW (AS) Date February 11, 2020 Title Andre Luiz Costa Soares v. GEO, et al. 2241 (“First Amended Petition”) on the proper Central District of California form, or a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (to the extent that Petitioner was attempting to file a civil rights action pursuant to

).

. Petitioner was instructed that the First Amended Petition “shall be complete in itself, must not incorporate by reference any other pleading, and should set forth clearly each claim which Petitioner intends to raise in this proceeding and the factual bases for each claim.”

. Petitioner was also 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 Voluntary Dismissal. Therefore, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order (by no later than March 12, 2020), 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 a First Amended Petition which complies with the Court’s January 6, 2020 Order, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, or a statement setting forth why he is unable to do so. A copy of the Court’s January 6, 2020 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