Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00174/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00174-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACKLYN LORRAINE TODD,

Petitioner,

v.

YUBA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:20-cv-0174-TLN-KJN

ORDER

Jacklyn Lorraine Todd (“Petitioner”) has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

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

On January 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the 

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner 

did not file objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the findings and 

recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to 

keep the court apprised of her current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 

of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

////

Case 2:20-cv-00174-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/08/20 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

Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 29, 2020 (ECF No. 4), are adopted 

in full; 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice. 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971);

3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 7, 2020

Case 2:20-cv-00174-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 2