Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02374/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02374-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Martinez
Respondent
Lee Rocky Windsor
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

LEE ROCKY WINDSOR 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOEL MARTINEZ, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2374 WBS GGH 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On October 31, 2016 Prisoner was ordered to show cause, within thirty (30) days, why he 

failed to oppose Respondent’s April 1, 2016 Motion to Dismiss his Petition (failure to exhaust), 

why that failure should not be deemed a waiver of any opposition, and therefore why the Motion 

to Dismiss should not be granted. ECF No. 15. The thirty day period has expired and Petitioner 

has filed no explanation for the failure to oppose or otherwise responded to the court’s Order. 

 The Petitioner was cautioned that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause, or to file 

an Opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss, would result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. 

 The undersigned has reviewed the Motion and finds that it has merit. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-02374-WBS-GGH Document 16 Filed 12/12/16 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, it is hereby recommended that: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed April 1, 2016, be granted; and 

2. The District Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven (7) 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: December 9, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-02374-WBS-GGH Document 16 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 2