Background

On September 7, 2022, Petitioner Muhammed Hussain Muhammed (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section 2241”) (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 1.) The Petition alleges one ground for relief: that Petitioner’s sentence was imposed in violation of the five-year maximum sentence provided under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Id. at 6.1)

On September 28, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Petition Should Not be Dismissed (“Order”), ordering respondent to show cause why the Court should not recommend characterization of the Petition as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Section 2255”) and dismissal of the action as an unauthorized second or successive Section 2255 motion. (ECF No. 5.) The Court ordered Petitioner to respond to the Order by no later than thirty (30) days after the date of the Order. (Id. at 5.)

On November 30, 2022, Petitioner filed a Request for Extension of Time (“Request”), requesting a thirty-day extension in which to file a response to the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 6.) The Court granted Petitioner’s Request and extended the deadline to file a response to the Order to January 5, 2023. (ECF No. 7.)

1 Pinpoint citations in this Order refer to the page numbers appearing in the ECF-generated headers of the Petition.

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 2 Case 2:22-cv-06629-SPG-MAA Document 8 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-06629-SPG-MAA Date: February 6, 2023 Title Muhammed Hussain Muhammed v. Warden Langford

Discussion

To date, Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s Order as required. Accordingly, Petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than March 6, 2023 why the Court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.

Failure to comply with this Order by March 6, 2023 may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

This Order is non-dispositive. However, if Petitioner believes this Order erroneously disposes of any of his claims or precludes any relief sought, he may file objections with the district judge within twenty (20) days after the date of the Order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

It is so ordered.

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 2