Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01492-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

MICHAEL MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL THOMPSON, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-01492 JAM GGH P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c). 

On November 29, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 13. However, 

petitioner failed to file an opposition, or statement of non-opposition within the requisite deadline. 

See ECF No. 11. On January 24, 2020, the court issued an order to show cause ordering petitioner 

to show cause within 14 days, why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 

and/or to follow a court order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 14.

Petitioner was further informed that the filing of an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, 

within the timeframe would serve as cause and would discharge the January 24, 2020. Id. 

Petitioner has not responded to the court’s orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case.

////

Case 2:19-cv-01492-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 02/24/20 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

Moreover, review of the case docket indicates the copy of the order to show cause served 

by mail on Petitioner was returned on January 31, 2020, as undeliverable. However, pursuant to 

Local Rule 182(f), service at the address listed on the docket remains fully effective in the 

absence of a notification of change of address. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

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 24, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01492-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2