Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01679/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01679-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL SIMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

AUDREY KING, Executive Director of 

Coalinga State Hospital, and CLIFFORD

ALLENBY, Chief Director of California 

Mental Health Services,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01679-AWI-SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THE 

COURT DISMISS PETITION 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 7) 

Petitioner Earl Simpson is a former state prisoner who has been civilly committed to 

Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California Penal Code § 2972. On October 21, 2014, Petitioner 

filed a document entitled "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and Requesting to Vacate 

an Order of Judgment." The Court reviewed the petition and dismissed it on December 31, 2014,

with leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. Petitioner failed to amend the petition or 

to respond in any other way.

On February 11, 2015, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order, returnable within fifteen days. Again, Petitioner

failed to respond in any other way.

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss the above-captioned 

petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to obey a court order.

Case 1:14-cv-01679-AWI-SMS Document 9 Filed 03/11/15 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, either party may file written 

objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01679-AWI-SMS Document 9 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2