Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01783-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

KOSAL YOUNN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, et al, 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-1783 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On January 4, 2016, the undersigned issued an order to show cause within thirty days why 

petitioner’s case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.1 ECF No. 7. Petitioner was 

warned that his failure to prosecute this action or his failure to comply with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, the court's orders, or the court's Local Rules would result in a recommendation 

that his entire action be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice. Id. 

More than thirty days have passed and petitioner has not responded to the court’s January 

4, 2016 order. Accordingly, dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted for failure to 

prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 

 

1

 In the order to show cause, the undersigned noted that a recent court order had been served on 

petitioner’s address of record and returned by the postal service, indicating that petitioner had 

failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b). ECF No. 7 at 1. The court further observed that an 

online search for petitioner’s name in the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department’s inmate 

locator service returned no search results, indicating that petitioner may no longer be in custody. 

See id. 

Case 2:15-cv-01783-JAM-AC Document 8 Filed 02/12/16 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to 

this action. 

 Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 

183(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 fourteen days 

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “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: February 11, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01783-JAM-AC Document 8 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 2