Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01368/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01368-1/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

 Due to clerical errors made during service of the order, the Clerk served the order twice

on July 14, 2005, and served it a third time on August 1, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMA JAY GALLON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1368 DFL DAD P 

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus attacking his 2001 criminal conviction in Sacramento County Superior Court. The

pleading filed in this court on July 7, 2005, consists of a state court form captioned for filing in

Sacramento County Superior Court. By order filed July 14, 2005, petitioner was granted fifteen

days to request the return of his state habeas petition for mailing to the state court or, in the

alternative, to request a federal habeas petition form with an application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.1 Petitioner has not responded to the court’s order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

Case 2:05-cv-01368-DFL-DAD Document 7 Filed 08/26/05 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

These findings and recommendations will be 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. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Judge’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 25, 2005.

DAD:13

gall1368.156

Case 2:05-cv-01368-DFL-DAD Document 7 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2