(DP) Contreras v. Davis ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01523-JLT 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, 15 Respondent.1 16 17 18 On September 7, 2023, Petitioner Jorge Contreras, a condemned state prisoner, through 19 appointed counsel, moved (1) to stay this federal habeas proceeding pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 20 544 U.S. 269 (2005), so that he may present the state court with unexhausted claims contained in 21 his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition filed on August 1, 2023, and (2) for leave to file a 22 first amended petition. (Doc. 129.) 23 Court records reflect that Respondent Warden Ron Broomfield, represented herein by 24 Deputy Attorney General Christina Simpson, has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of 25 non-opposition to Petitioner’s motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the 26 1 Ron Broomfield, appointed as warden of San Quentin State Prison in September 2021, is substituted as Respondent 27 in place of his predecessor wardens. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 | granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving 2 | party, and filed with this Court, no later than fourteen (14) days following the filed date of the 3 | motion or, in this instance, by September 21, 2023. 4 Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in 5 | opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by 6 | that party[,]” and that “[a] failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court 7 | as anon-opposition to the motion.” 8 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 9 | or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 10 | sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See e.g., 11 | Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules 12 | is a proper ground for dismissal.”). The decision to award sanctions is a matter within the 13 | Court's sound discretion. Moser v. Bret Harte Union High Sch. Dist., 366 F.Supp.2d 944, 949 14] (ED. Cal. 2005). 15 ACCORDINGLY, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Respondent shall show cause, in writing, no later than fourteen (14) days from 17 | issuance of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an 18 | opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. 19 2. Respondent shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition 20 | thereto, no later than fourteen (14) days from issuance of this order. 21 3. Failure of Respondent to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non- 22 | opposition to the pending motion. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5] Dated: _ October 3, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28