(HC) Lewis v. People of The State of California, No. 2:2010cv00110 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/30/2010 ORDERING the clerk ot randomly assign a US District Judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Assigned and Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 14 days.(Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Lewis v. People of The State of California Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RHONDA LEWIS, Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-10-0110 EFB P PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Respondent. / 15 On January 14, 2010, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. 16 17 § 2254. On July 26, 2010, the court dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition 18 naming the proper respondent within thirty days. That order warned petitioner that failure to 19 timely file an amended petition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty days have passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise 20 21 responded to that order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a United States 22 23 District Judge to this case. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 24 25 Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; L. R. 110. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 6 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 7 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 8 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 9 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 10 Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 11 enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 12 Dated: September 30, 2010. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
