Williams v. DVI - Warden
Filing
8
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/15/2011. It is ORDERED that Clerk assign a District Judge to this case. Judge Kimberly J. Mueller is ASSIGNED to this matter; it is also RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Within 21 days after being served with these F/Rs, petitioner may file written Objections with Court. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ANTHONY JAMES WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
11
12
vs.
13
No. 2:11-cv-1674 KJN P
DVI-WARDEN,
ORDER AND
Respondent.
14
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/
15
By an order filed June 24, 2011, petitioner was ordered to file, within thirty days,
16
17
an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, or request the voluntary
18
dismissal of this action without prejudice. Petitioner was cautioned that failure to timely comply
19
with the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without
20
prejudice.1 The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court’s
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
The court also noted that petitioner indicated he had not exhausted his state court
remedies before filing the instant federal petition. The exhaustion of state court remedies is a
prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Also,
petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for
filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will
start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of
direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of
limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral
review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
1
1
order and has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the
2
3
Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and IT IS RECOMMENDED that this
4
action be dismissed without prejudice.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
6
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
7
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
8
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
9
Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
10
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
11
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
DATED: August 15, 2011
13
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
will1674.fpf
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?