Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00398-0/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

JIMMIE GONZALEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0398 LKK PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a former state prisoner on parole proceeding pro se with an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By this action, petitioner

challenges a 2001 prison disciplinary conviction for possession of a controlled substance

pursuant to which he lost 130 days of behavioral credits.

On March 14, 2006, a court order served on petitioner’s address of record was

returned by the postal service as undeliverable. On March 21, 2006, a reserved copy of that order

was also returned as undeliverable. Subsequently, the court was informed by officials with the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that petitioner was discharged to parole

on October 5, 2004. Petitioner has not since his release advised the court of his new address as

required by Local Rule 83-182(f). It appears that petitioner may have abandoned his claims and,

in any event, the court is unable to serve petitioner with notice of any action taken in this case. 

Case 2:03-cv-00398-LKK -PAN Document 17 Filed 06/02/06 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

The court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local

Rule 11-110. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110.

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 twenty

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.” 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: May 31, 2006.

12

gonz0398.133a

Case 2:03-cv-00398-LKK -PAN Document 17 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2