Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00262/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00262-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nestor Jose Ardon
Petitioner
Attorney General of the State of California
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NESTOR JOSE ARDON,

Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0262 CKD P

ORDER &

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 26, 2016, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, 

arguing that this action is time-barred and, alternatively, that petitioner has not exhausted 

administrative remedies as required by § 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

On June 3, 2016, petitioner was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the pending motion within thirty days. In the same order, petitioner was informed 

that failure to file an opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not 

responded to the court’s order. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a 

district judge to this action. 

////

Case 2:16-cv-00262-JAM-CKD Document 11 Filed 07/08/16 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: July 7, 2016

2 / ardo0262.146fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00262-JAM-CKD Document 11 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2