Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00373/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00373-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-0373 FCD DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 21, 2005, findings and

recommendations were issued which recommended that petitioner’s application be denied. 

Petitioner’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned as undeliverable and

petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations. On November 22, 2005,

judgment was issued denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. 

On November 17, 2005, petitioner filed a letter in which he informs the court that

he was transferred to another jail between October 15, 2005, and November 2, 2005, and did not

receive any mail. He requests that any returned mail be re-served at his current address. This

letter did not come to the court’s attention until after service of the November 22, 2005

judgment. 

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 11/30/05 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The November 22, 2005 judgment is vacated;

2. The Clerk of Court shall serve the October 21, 2005 findings and

recommendations on petitioner at his current address, listed on the November 17, 2005 letter; and

3. Within thirty days after being served with the October 21, 2005 findings and

recommendations, petitioner 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.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after

service of the objections. 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:November 30, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2