Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00632/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00632-1/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

JUAN RAMIREZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0632 LKK DAD P

vs.

UNKNOWN, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed April 3, 2006, petitioner was ordered to file a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus within thirty days, using the form petition provided by the Clerk of the Court. 

In addition, petitioner was ordered to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay

the required filing fee 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 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, has not filed an application to proceed

in forma pauperis or paid the appropriate filing fee, and has not otherwise responded to the

court’s order. 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

Case 2:06-cv-00632-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/18/06 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

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

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: May 17, 2006.

DAD:lg

rami0632.fff

Case 2:06-cv-00632-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2