Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01394/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01394-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LETRICE TOWNSEL,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01394-NONE-JLT (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 22)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT (Doc. No. 

19)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 

FILE A RESPONSE

[SIXTY DAY DEADLINE]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 14, 2020, respondent moved to dismiss 

the pending petition on the ground that petitioner had not sworn to the truth of certain of his 

claims. (Doc. No. 19.) On February 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot because 

petitioner had since filed a declaration swearing to the allegations of his petition. (Doc. Nos. 21, 

22.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that 

any objections were to be filed within ten days from the date of service of that order. To date, no 

party has filed objections.

///// 

Case 1:19-cv-01394-JLT-CDB Document 23 Filed 03/23/20 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 22), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED AS MOOT;

3. Respondent is DIRECTED to file a response to the petition within sixty days from 

the date of service of this order; 

4. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due within thirty days of the date respondent’s 

response is filed; and 

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01394-JLT-CDB Document 23 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 2