Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01666-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEOTIS THORNTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1666 FCD GGH P

vs.

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed October 6, 2005, petitioner was ordered to file a new application

to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired,

and petitioner has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed a new application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:05-cv-01666-FCD-GGH Document 7 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 12/5/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

thor1666.fff

Case 2:05-cv-01666-FCD-GGH Document 7 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2