Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01047/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01047-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Earl Gray
Petitioner
Rick Hill
Respondent

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 

DAVID EARL GRAY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN RICK HILL, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-1047-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 10, 2015, the district judge adopted the 

undersigned’s findings and recommendations, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss, and 

directed petitioner to file an amended petition to delete his uncognizable (Claims 5(K), 5(L), and 

5(P)), unexhausted (Claims 5(J), 5(M), 5(N), 5(O), 5(Q), and 6), and untimely (Claim 8) claims 

within thirty days of the date of that order. 

 The time period for acting has passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or 

otherwise responded to that order.1

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Local Rule 110. 

 1

 Petitioner did file an interlocutory appeal from the district judge’s order. As that order 

was not certified for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, on July 30, 2015, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. 

Case 2:14-cv-01047-JAM-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/04/15 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

 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). In 

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 

enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: August 3, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01047-JAM-EFB Document 32 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 2