Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02642/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02642-2/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

JOSE G. REYES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2642 WBS DAD P

vs.

ROBERT A. HOREL, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed November 22, 2006, petitioner’s petition was dismissed and thirty

days’ leave to file an amended petition was granted. In addition, petitioner was ordered to either

pay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas corpus action or file an application to proceed in forma

pauperis, using the forms provided by the court with the order. On January 5, 2007, petitioner

was granted an additional thirty days to comply with the order. The time period has now expired,

and petitioner has not filed an amended petition, has not paid the appropriate filing fee, has not

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and has not otherwise responded to the court’s

order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02642-WBS-DAD Document 6 Filed 02/14/07 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 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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: February 13, 2007.

DAD:lg

reye2642.fta.fifp

Case 2:06-cv-02642-WBS-DAD Document 6 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 2