(HC) Williams v. Diaz, No. 1:2018cv01362 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Respondent's 15 Motion to Dismiss ; ORDER DIRECTING Respondent to File a Response; Case Referred back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/2/2019. (60-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAI WALTER WILLIAMS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 RALPH DIAZ, Acting Secretary, Respondent. 17 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 20) ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 15) v. 15 16 No. 1:18-cv-01362-AWI-JLT (HC) ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE A RESPONSE [SIXTY DAY DEADLINE] 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On December 18, 2018, Respondent filed a motion 21 to dismiss contending that the petitioner had violated the statute of limitations. (Doc. 15.) On 22 January 2, 2019, Petitioner filed an opposition in which he showed the petition was timely filed. 23 (Doc. 19.) On January 22, 2019, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued Findings and 24 Recommendation to deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 20.) This Findings and 25 Recommendation was served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 26 filed within twenty-one days from the date of service of that order. To date, no party has filed 27 objections. 28 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 3 the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper 4 analysis. 5 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 6 1. 7 The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 22, 2019 (Doc. No. 20), is ADOPTED IN FULL; 8 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED; 9 3. Respondent is DIRECTED to file a response to the petition within sixty days of 10 11 the date of service of this order; 4. 12 13 Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due within thirty days of the date Respondent’s response is filed; and 5. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2019 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.