Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02442/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02442-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARMEET SINGH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2442 MCE DAD P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed November 9, 2006, petitioner’s habeas petition was dismissed and

thirty days’ leave to file an amended petition was granted. In addition, petitioner was ordered to

file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided or submit the

appropriate filing fee within thirty days. On December 5, 2006, petitioner was granted an

additional sixty days to comply with the order. Petitioner was forewarned that failure to do so

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The time period

has now expired and petitioner has not filed an amended petition, has not paid the appropriate

filing fee, has not submitted a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, and has not

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Case 2:06-cv-02442-MCE -DAD Document 7 Filed 02/21/07 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

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: February 21, 2007.

DAD:lg

sing2442.fta.fifp

Case 2:06-cv-02442-MCE -DAD Document 7 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2