Sarmiento v. Hill

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/21/17 recommending that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in the court's 5/05/17 order 29 . Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMUEL SARMIENTO,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1338 MCE AC P

Petitioner,
v.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

RICK HILL,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18
19

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
By order filed May 5, 2017, the undersigned found that petitioner had failed to show cause

20

why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of habeas jurisdiction; petitioner was given

21

thirty days to file an amended complaint and convert this action to a civil rights action under 42

22

U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 29. Thirty days have now passed and petitioner has not filed an

23

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the order. Accordingly, the undersigned will

24

recommend that the petition be dismissed for lack of habeas jurisdiction as set forth in the May 5,

25

2017 order.

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of

27

habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in the court’s May 5,

28

2017 order (ECF No. 29).
1

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

6

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

7

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

8

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

DATED: June 21, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2