Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02651/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02651-5/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

ROBERT L. CONLEY, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2651 MCE EFB P

vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On December 12, 2006, the court found that petitioner may be entitled to relief

and ordered respondents to file a response within 30 days. Defendants timely filed a motion to

dismiss on January 11, 2007. Petitioner filed his opposition on February 5, 2007. The court

found respondents’ April 6, 2007, reply to be timely filed.

On August 14, 2007, the court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing on

exhaustion of the issues presented in the petition. Respondents filed their supplemental briefing

on August 16, 2007. Petitioner requested a 60-day enlargement of time on August 23, 2007,

stating that the institution was on lockdown and that it was difficult for him to gain access to the

law library. The court found good cause and granted that request by order filed September 17,

2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02651-MCE -EFB Document 22 Filed 02/12/08 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

On November 16, 2007, the court issued an order directing petitioner to show good

cause, within 15 days, why the petition should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the

court’s August 14, 2007, order directing him to file supplemental briefing on exhaustion of the

issues in his petition. 

On February 1, 2008, petitioner filed a letter regarding his August 13, 2007, objection to

respondents’ March 28, 2007, request to file a belated reply. This letter is nonresponsive to the

court’s order directing the parties to file supplemental briefing on exhaustion of issues contained

in the petition. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that this action be dismissed for petitioner’s

failure to prosecute. 

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).

Dated: February 12, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02651-MCE -EFB Document 22 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2