Mills v. California Medical Facility

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/3/2017 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed based on petitioner's faulure to exhaust state court remedies. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; 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

KENNETH WAYNE MILLS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2766 JAM KJN P

Petitioner,
v.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et
al.,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas

19

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 31, 2017, the undersigned granted petitioner

20

twenty-one days to show cause why this action should not be dismissed based on his failure to

21

exhaust state court remedies. (ECF No. 15.) Twenty-one days passed and petitioner did not

22

respond to the March 31, 2017 order.

23

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the March 31, 2017, order, IT IS HEREBY

24

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to exhaust state

25

court remedies.

26

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

27

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

28

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
1

1

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

2

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections,

3

he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to

4

which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

5

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

6

2253(c)(3). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

7

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

8

1991).

9

Dated: May 3, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15

Mill2766.dis

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