Emanuele Trombini v. Tristan Lemon

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Emanuele Trombini v. Tristan Lemon

Trial Court Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:22-cv-08968-PA (MAA) Date: January 17, 2025 Title: Emanuele Trombini v. Tristan Lemon

Present: The Honorable MARIA A. AUDERO, United States Magistrate Judge

Cindy Delgado N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A

Proceedings (In Chambers): Second Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution

On August 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner, to whom this case previously was assigned, issued an order staying the case pursuant to Rhines v. Weber,

544 U.S. 269

(2005), and directing that Petitioner file status reports with this Court regarding the status of Petitioner’s state habeas proceedings on the first business day of every other month. (ECF No. 24.)

On August 20, 2024, after this case was transferred to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero, the Court noted that the last such status report had been filed by Petitioner on January 11, 2024 and ordered Petitioner to show cause, in writing, no later than September 20, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution (“August 20 Order”). (ECF No. 30.) Petitioner was cautioned that failure to respond to the August 20 Order could result in dismissal of the Petition for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. (Id.)

To date, Petitioner has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to the August 20 Order. Out of consideration for Petitioner’s pro se status, the Court will provide Petitioner an additional opportunity to file a status report. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, by no later than February 18, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. If Petitioner files a status report on or before February 18, 2025, this Second Order to Show Cause will be discharged, and no additional action need be taken.

Petitioner is cautioned that failure to respond to this Order may result in dismissal of the Petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.

It is so ordered.

Reference

Status
Unknown