Sarmiento v. Hill
Filing
33
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/8/2017 RECOMMENDING petitioner's 1 application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in the court's 5/5/2017 order. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Yin, K)
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
15
No. 2:13-cv-1338 MCE AC P
Petitioner,
v.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
RICK HILL,
Respondent.
16
17
By order filed May 5, 2017, the undersigned found that petitioner had failed to show cause
18
why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of habeas jurisdiction and he was given thirty
19
days to file an amended complaint and convert this action to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
20
§ 1983. ECF No. 29. After the thirty days had passed and petitioner failed to file an amended
21
complaint or otherwise responded to the order, the undersigned issued findings and
22
recommendations that recommended that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECF
23
No. 30. After the findings and recommendations were issued, petitioner filed an untimely motion
24
for extension of time. ECF No. 31. Since petitioner demonstrated an intent to continue
25
prosecuting his claim, the findings and recommendations were withdrawn and petitioner was
26
given until July 19, 2017, to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 32. He was warned that any
27
future motions for extension of time were to be filed before the deadline passed and that if the
28
motion was late he had to explain why the motion was late. Id. Petitioner’s July 19, 2017
1
1
deadline has now passed and petitioner has once again failed to amend the complaint or otherwise
2
respond to the court’s order. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the petition be
3
dismissed for lack of habeas jurisdiction as set forth in the May 5, 2017 order.
4
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas
5
corpus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in the court’s May 5, 2017
6
order (ECF No. 29).
7
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
8
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
9
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
10
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
11
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
12
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
13
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
14
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15
DATED: September 8, 2017
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?