Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02696/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02696-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

LI GUO YAO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

TIMOTHY S. AIKEN, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-2696-GEB-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On March 11, 2016, respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition is moot. 

On April 13, 2016, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to 

any motion to dismiss. That order gave petitioner 21 days to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition and warned petitioner that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed. 

 The 21 days have passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no 

opposition nor otherwise responded to the April 13, 2016, order.1

 1

 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the order was returned, 

petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of a 

current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record 

address of the party is fully effective. 

Case 2:15-cv-02696-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/05/16 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

 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 

Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

 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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 

enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

Dated: May 5, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02696-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2