Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01489/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01489-3/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

JOSE DeJESUS RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1489 MCE GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed August 24, 2005, petitioner’s application was dismissed and thirty

days’ leave to file an amended application was granted. The thirty day period expired and

petitioner did not file an amended application. Accordingly, on January 19, 2006, the court

recommended that this action be dismissed. 

On January 24, 2006, petitioner filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. Petitioner stated that he filed the amended petition but the Clerk’s Office

misplaced it. While the court had no record of petitioner’s amended petition, on February 3,

2006, it vacated the findings and recommendations and granted petitioner twenty days to file an

amended petition.

Twenty days passed and petitioner did not file an amended petition. Instead, he

filed a document titled “second objection to findings and recommendations.” This document

Case 2:05-cv-01489-DFL -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/23/06 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

cannot be construed as an amended petition. Accordingly, the court recommends that this action

be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to comply with the court order directing him to file an

amended petition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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: 3/22/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

rodr1489.fta

Case 2:05-cv-01489-DFL -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2