Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00964/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00964-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Barksdale
Petitioner
Ponce
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 

CHARLES BARKSDALE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PONCE, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0964 AC P (TEMP) 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus petition filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 5, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the 

petition. Petitioner had not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion, so on November 12, 

2015, the court ordered petitioner to show cause in writing within twenty-one days why this court 

should not grant the pending motion to dismiss the petition. The court cautioned petitioner that 

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

That twenty-one day period has now expired, and petitioner has not opposed respondent’s motion 

to dismiss or responded to the court’s order. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to 

randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Case 2:15-cv-00964-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/07/16 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

 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: January 6, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00964-JAM-AC Document 17 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2