(HC) Galindo-Murrillo v. Warden

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUAN GALINDO-MURILLO, No. 2:23-cv-00645-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER WARDEN, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner pursuing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 18 U.S.C. § 2241. On August 24, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. ECF No. 15. Petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.

20 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), which applies to respondent’s motion to dismiss, an “[o]pposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion.” Id. A responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 26 Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an || action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the || Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not | abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an || amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 5 | 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiffs failure to comply with local rule | regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order, || petitioner shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition.

9 | Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed | without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s August 17, 2023 motion for | prompt disposition of this action (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. The court will act on the petition in || due course once petitioner has filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending | motion to dismiss.

14 Hy || Dated: September 29, 2023 LP LT "bin OAS SHEA 0) 16 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE