(HC) Powell v. W. L. Montgomery, No. 2:2016cv00548 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/8/16 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Powell v. W. L. Montgomery Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDALL R. POWELL, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-0548-MCE-EFB P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS W.L. MONTGOMERY, Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 4, 2016, respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition is barred by 20 the statute of limitations. ECF No. 22. On June 9, 2016, the court informed petitioner of the 21 requirements for filing an opposition to any motion to dismiss. That order gave petitioner 21 days 22 to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition and warned petitioner that failure to do so 23 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. After petitioner failed to file an 24 opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion, the court recommended dismissal of this 25 action for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 25. 26 Petitioner then filed a response to the findings and recommendations, stating that after 27 submitting his petition, he “never received a response . . . .” ECF No. 26. In an abundance of 28 caution, the court vacated the recommendation of dismissal and ordered respondent to re-serve 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the motion to dismiss on petitioner. ECF No. 27. The order granted petitioner another 30 days 2 within which to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition and warned petitioner that 3 failure to do so would result in another recommendation that this action be dismissed. 4 Respondent re-served the motion to dismiss on August 3, 2016. ECF No. 28. More than 5 30 days have passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition, a statement of no opposition, or 6 otherwise responded to the motion. 7 8 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 14 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 15 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 16 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 17 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 18 Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 19 enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 20 Dated: September 8, 2016. 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.