Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02205/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02205-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LUJAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-02205 DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

By an order filed November 12, 2013, this action was re-opened and plaintiff was ordered 

to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fee within thirty days. Plaintiff 

was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 

order and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the appropriate filing fee. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 

randomly assign this case to a District Judge.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

Case 2:13-cv-02205-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 01/07/14 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

27

28

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: January 6, 2014

DAD:4

luj2205.fifp

Case 2:13-cv-02205-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 2