Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00181/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00181-1/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

RANDY AUSBORN,

Petitioner,

v.

CAL. DEP’T CORRS. & REHAB.,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-0181 DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In an order filed February 10, 2020, petitioner was 

advised that he must inform the court whether he has presented any federal constitutional claims 

regarding the disciplinary conviction at issue to the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 5.) The 

court gave petitioner thirty days to provide that statement. Petitioner was warned that if he failed 

to provide the statement to the court, this court would recommend dismissal of this action.

Thirty days have passed and petitioner has not filed the statement required by the 

February 10 order. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 

judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMNEDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41; E.D. Cal. R. 110. 

Case 2:20-cv-00181-KJM-DB Document 8 Filed 03/23/20 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 will be 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, 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 result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In the objections, petitioner may address whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue in the event an appeal of the judgment in this case is filed. 

See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of 

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant).

Dated: March 20, 2020

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-habeas/ausb0181.fr

Case 2:20-cv-00181-KJM-DB Document 8 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 2