Richardson v. Sacramento Superior Court

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 1/21/09 ORDERING that the 5 findings and recommendations filed December 17, 2008, are adopted in full. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, including his request for injunctive relief, is DENIED. This action is dismissed without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)

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 On December 22, 2008, petitioner filed another petition for writ of mandate, which he signed on December 18, 2008. Because the findings and recommendations were issued on December 17, petitioner did not file the second petition in response to the findings and recommendations, and the court will not construe the filing as objections thereto. The December 22 petition for writ of mandate suffers from the same defects addressed in the findings and recommendations; thus, it will be placed in the court file and disregarded. 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN W. RICHARDSON, Petitioner, vs. SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent. / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. On December 17, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 ORDER No. 2:08-cv-2973 FCD JFM (PC)

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 full;

Although it appears from the file that petitioner's copy of the findings and recommendations were returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 17, 2008, are adopted in

2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including his request for injunctive relief, is denied; and 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice. DATED: January 21, 2009.

_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2