Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03572/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03572-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Swarthouth
Respondent
Charlie Chong Thao
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLIE CHONG THAO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-3572 EFB P

vs.

WARDEN SWARTHOUTH, ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See

28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On January 5, 2010, the court found that petitioner had failed to pay the filing fee

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). Petitioner was granted thirty days in which to pay the filing fee or file an application

to proceed in forma pauperis and was warned that failure to comply would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

The 30-day period has expired and petitioner has not paid the filing fee, filed a completed

in forma pauperis application, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

////

Case 2:09-cv-03572-WBS-DAD Document 7 Filed 03/18/10 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

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk shall randomly assign a United States

District Judge to this case; and

It is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

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: March 18, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03572-WBS-DAD Document 7 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2