Maestas v. State of California et al

Filing 18

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/29/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LENNY ROSS MAESTAS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2421-MCE-EFB P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a former county inmate proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

19

On January 17, 2017, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that

20

there is no longer a case or controversy to support jurisdiction. ECF No. 13. On February 21,

21

2017, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to any motion to

22

dismiss. That order gave petitioner 21 days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition

23

and warned petitioner that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be

24

dismissed. ECF No. 17.
The 21 days have passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no

25
26

opposition nor otherwise responded to the February 21, 2017, order.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1
2

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; E.D. Cal., Local Rule 110.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

8

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

9

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In

10

his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the

11

event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing

12

Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it

13

enters a final order adverse to the applicant).

14

Dated: March 29, 2017.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2