Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00796/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00796-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Duffy
Respondent
Richard Orville Schultz
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 

RICHARD ORVILLE SCHULTZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

BRIAN DUFFY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-796-GEB-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Mr. Schultz, a state prisoner without counsel, filed a 340-page “motion to protect 

petitioner against tolling until state remedies are exhausted” on April 13, 2015. On April 17, 

2015, the court notified Mr. Schultz that he had not properly commenced a habeas action because 

he had not filed a petition as required by Rule 3 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. ECF No. 

5. The court granted Mr. Schultz 30 days within which to file a petition. Id. On June 6, 2015, 

the court granted Mr. Schultz an additional 30 days in which to file either a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus or a civil rights complaint. ECF No. 11. That order warned him that failure to 

comply would result in this action being dismissed. 

 The time period for acting has passed and Mr. Schultz has not filed a petition, a civil 

rights complaint or otherwise responded to that order. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00796-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 07/15/15 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 this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 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 fourteen 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: July 14, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00796-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 2