Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01761/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01761-9/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

GEORGE HAMILTON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1761 DFL GGH P

vs.

J. S. WOODFORD, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

By Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 21, 2006, this court

recommended dismissal of this action because, inter alia, after having been granted three thirtyday extensions of time, in addition to the original thirty-day period he was granted to file a civil

rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, petitioner/plaintiff failed to file a complaint. The pro

se habeas petition originally filed had been dismissed because his complaint was as to conditions

of confinement rather than a challenge to the validity or constitutionality of his conviction or

sentence. 

Petitioner/plaintiff has demonstrated a repeated failure to comply with court

orders as was set forth in the Findings and Recommendations. He nevertheless now asks the

court to vacate the June 21, 2006, Findings and Recommendations because he finally understands

that he should have filed a civil rights complaint and is now willing to do so. Tellingly, plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-01761-DFL-GGH Document 37 Filed 08/14/06 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

does not include with the request a proposed complaint. Petitioner/plaintiff has failed to provide

any legitimate basis for his request, seeking to justify his dilatoriness by concerns which the court

had previously addressed. This request will be denied.

Nor does petitioner/plaintiff’s subsequent request for an extension of time to file

objections to the same Findings and Recommendations provide a good faith basis for granting

the request. He does not explain why it is necessary for him to conduct extensive legal research

when the recommendation of dismissal is based on his inability to comply with court orders. 

Having repeatedly indulged petitioner/plaintiff with generously granted extensions of time to no

avail, the court will no longer to do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 29, 2006, request to vacate the June 21, 2006, Findings and

Recommendations, is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s July 13, 2006, motion for extension of time to file objections to the

June 21, 2006, Findings and Recommendations, is denied.

DATED: 8/14/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

hami1761.dny2

Case 2:05-cv-01761-DFL-GGH Document 37 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2