Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01644/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01644-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Respondent
John Cline
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CLINE,

Petitioner,

v.

JERRY BROWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01644-LJO-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS THE PETITION

(Docs. 1, 13) 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Lawrence 

J. O’Neil under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 302 of the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of California.

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In an order dated March 11, 2016, the Court dismissed the petition with 

leave to amend. Petitioner was given thirty days (30) from the entry of the order to file an amended 

petition alleging facts which demonstrate he has exhausted his state remedies. Petitioner was 

advised that failure to file an amended petition within the allotted time would result in a dismissal

of this action. Doc. 13. Service of the order by mail was made on March 14, 2016. 

To date, after over two months since Petitioner was served, the Court has not received an 

amended petition. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends the petition be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state 

remedies. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

Case 1:15-cv-01644-LJO-SMS Document 16 Filed 05/26/16 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

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

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.1991) (noting that failure to object to a 

magistrate judge’s findings “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver 

of an issue on appeal”) (citations omitted). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01644-LJO-SMS Document 16 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 2