Baughman

(HC) Brown v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 29, 20212:20-cv-01746California1,143 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, No. 2: 20-cv-1746 JAM KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER & FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

DAVID BAUGHMAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is proceeding, without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 6, 2020, respondent moved to dismiss this action as barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 16.) On November 9, 2021, the undersigned granted petitioner thirty days to file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 49.) Thirty days passed and petitioner failed to file a response to the motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the November 9, 2021 order. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to prosecute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants district courts sua sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.