Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00689-6/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

GUADALUPE SOLIS ALVAREZ, No. CIV S-05-0689-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On October 21, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner has

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-00689-JAM -CMK Document 32 Filed 02/01/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The court declines to adopt the

findings and recommendations. Petitioner properly filed a notice that his address had been

changed, but failed to file a proof of service. The magistrate judge ordered petitioner to file the

proof of service by September 8, 2005. Petitioner did not do so. In the objections, petitioner

states that he did not comply with the court’s order because he is illiterate and was not getting

adequate assistance at Corcoran prison. Petitioner has now complied with the court’s order. 

Given the nature of the violation – respondents had reason to know of petitioner’s new address

since they transferred him – petitioner’s explanation, and petitioner’s eventual compliance, the

court declines to dismiss the petition. Petitioner is advised that a proof of service must

accompany all filings. Failure to do so in the future will cause the court to impose sanctions

which may include dismissal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 21, 2005, are not adopted;

and,

2. The action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

DATED: 1/31/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00689-JAM -CMK Document 32 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2