Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01228/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01228-5/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

 The Recommendation was properly served at Petitioner’s last known address of record as identified in the 1

change of address filed on May 4, 2007, and no new address changes have been filed. (Court Doc. 17.) Service of

documents at the prior address of record of the party is effective service. Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS LUNA,

Petitioner,

v.

P. VASQUEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1228 LJO DLB HC

ORDER VACATING ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND

JUDGMENT ENTERED ON DECEMBER 20,

2007, AND GRANTING PETITIONER

THIRTY DAYS TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

[Court Docs. 18, 20, 21]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action issued a Findings and

Recommendation to deny instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Court Doc. 18.) The

Recommendation was properly served on the parties at the last known address of record.1

However, on October 18, 2007, the Recommendation mailed to Petitioner was returned to the

Court with a notation “Unable to locate/No Match.” (Court Doc. 19.) After the thirty day time

frame expired, the Recommendation was adopted in full and judgment was entered in favor of

Respondent on December 20, 2007. (Court Docs. 20, 21.) 

On January 25, 2008, Petitioner informed the Court that he never received a copy of the

Findings and Recommendation. (Court Doc. 22.) Petitioner states that the failure to receive the

Case 1:05-cv-01228-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 02/07/08 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

Recommendation resulted in his case being denied. (Id.) Based on Petitioner’s claim that he

never received the Recommendation and in the interest of justice, the Court will vacate the

judgment and grant Petitioner an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s December 20, 2007, order adopting the Findings and

Recommendation and judgment entered in favor of Respondent is VACATED; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner may file

objections to the Findings and Recommendation; and,

3. Failure to file timely objections will result in the issuance of a final order

resolving the instant petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01228-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 2