(HC) Schultz v. Duffy, No. 2:2015cv00796 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/14/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(HC) Schultz v. Duffy Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD ORVILLE SCHULTZ, 12 No. 2:15-cv-796-GEB-EFB P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 BRIAN DUFFY, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 16 Mr. Schultz, a state prisoner without counsel, filed a 340-page “motion to protect 17 18 petitioner against tolling until state remedies are exhausted” on April 13, 2015. On April 17, 19 2015, the court notified Mr. Schultz that he had not properly commenced a habeas action because 20 he had not filed a petition as required by Rule 3 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. ECF No. 21 5. The court granted Mr. Schultz 30 days within which to file a petition. Id. On June 6, 2015, 22 the court granted Mr. Schultz an additional 30 days in which to file either a petition for writ of 23 habeas corpus or a civil rights complaint. ECF No. 11. That order warned him that failure to 24 comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time period for acting has passed and Mr. Schultz has not filed a petition, a civil 25 26 rights complaint or otherwise responded to that order. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 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). 10 DATED: July 14, 2015. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.