Rameses v. Lizarraga

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/19/18 ORDERING that petitioner's request for extended time to file objections 12 is construed as an objection to the undersigned magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed 11 , and to any and all findings of fact and conclusions on which that recommendation is based. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT RAMESES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-2275 MCE AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

J. LIZARRAGA, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this habeas corpus action filed

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner requests a sixty-day extension of time to file objections

19

to the undersigned’s findings and recommendations filed April 17, 2018, on the ground that his

20

related state court actions have not concluded. See ECF No. 12. However, the undersigned has

21

already addressed this matter, finding that petitioner’s pending state court actions are not relevant

22

to this court’s determination that this action should be dismissed because successive under 28

23

U.S.C. § 2244(b). See ECF No. 11. Petitioner has therefore failed to demonstrate good cause for

24

an extended objection period.

25

Nevertheless, the court will construe petitioner’s request as a blanket objection to the

26

findings and recommendations, for which detailed legal arguments are unnecessary. In order to

27

protect petitioner’s rights, secure independent review by the assigned district judge, and preserve

28

issues for appeal, the court will construe petitioner’s request as an objection to the undersigned’s
1

1

recommendation that this action be dismissed, and to any and all findings of fact and conclusions

2

of law on which that recommendation is based. Petitioner need take no further action in order for

3

these objections to be considered. The district court will consider the arguments that petitioner

4

has made, both previously and in his current request, and will review the issues de novo.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for extended time to

6

file objections, ECF No. 12, is construed as an objection to the undersigned magistrate judge’s

7

recommendation that this action be dismissed (ECF No. 11), and to any and all findings of fact

8

and conclusions on which that recommendation is based.

9

DATED: April 19, 2018

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