(HC) Chandler v. Unknown, No. 2:2015cv01653 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/4/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Assigned and referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Chandler v. Unknown Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY A. CHANDLER, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1653 GGH P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNKNOWN, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. His initial filing was a document styled 18 motion for extension of time, seeking an extension of time to file a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus. No other pleadings have been filed by the petitioner. By order of September 21, 2015, 20 petitioner was advised that in order to commence an action, he must file a petition for writ of 21 habeas corpus as required by Rule 3 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, and either pay 22 the required filing fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 23 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The order warned petitioner that the court would not issue any 24 orders granting or denying relief until an action has been properly commenced. Accordingly, it 25 denied petitioner’s motion. See McDade v. Warden, 2010 WL 4795377 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Soto 26 v.Warden, 2009 WL 1705471 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Petitioner was granted thirty days leave to file 27 his petition, and to submit an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis or to 28 submit the appropriate filing fee. Petitioner was warned that failure to comply with that order 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 2 The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has failed to file a petition, and an 3 application to proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court’s 4 order. 5 6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: this action be dismissed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that 12 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 13 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: November 4, 2015 15 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 GGH:076/chand1653.fr 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.
