Lee v. Figueroa
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/08/15 ordering that within 30 days of service of this order, petitioner shall 1) file objections to the 6/17/15 findings and recommendations, 2) file an in forma pauperis affidavit, 3) pay the filing fee, or 4) file a notice telling the court that he is no longer continuing with this case. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FARAJI LAMONT LEE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-2724 MCE AC P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
FRED FIGUEROA,
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On June 17, 2015, findings and recommendations were issued recommending dismissal of
20
the case due to petitioner’s failure to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate
21
filing fee. ECF No. 6. Petitioner did not object to the findings and recommendations and the case
22
was dismissed on July 21, 2015. ECF Nos. 7, 8. On August 11, 2015, the court received a letter
23
from petitioner in which he indicated that he did not receive the June 17, 2015 findings and
24
recommendations and that his first notice that he had been required to take action was the order
25
dismissing his case. ECF No. 9. On September 21, 2015, the district judge vacated the order
26
dismissing the case and directed petitioner to file objections to the June 17, 2015 findings and
27
recommendations, file an in forma pauperis affidavit, or pay the filing fee within thirty days.
28
In re-opening the case, the court noted that it appeared from the petition that petitioner
1
1
may have filed his action in the wrong court. ECF No. 10 at 2. From the petition, it appeared that
2
petitioner was seeking to have his felony convictions resentenced as misdemeanors pursuant to
3
California Proposition 47 (2014). Id. The court advised petitioner that if this was in fact the
4
relief he sought, then his claim needed to be pursued in the trial court where he was convicted.
5
Id. The court expressed no opinion as to petitioner’s eligibility for resentencing. Id. at 3 n.1.
6
ECF No. 10.
7
The thirty day period has passed and petitioner has not responded to the September 21,
8
2015 order in any way. It is unclear whether petitioner’s lack of response is because he has
9
chosen to pursue an action in state court or if it is due to some other reason.
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of service of this order,
11
petitioner shall (1) file objections to the June 17, 2015 findings and recommendations, (2) file an
12
in forma pauperis affidavit, (3) pay the filing fee, or (4) file a notice telling the court that he is no
13
longer continuing with this case. Failure to comply with this order will result in a
14
recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
15
DATED: December 8, 2015
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?