(HC) Valera v. The People of the State of California, No. 1:2022cv00852 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 5/30/2023 ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 No. 1:22-cv-00852-ADA-CDB JOEL VALERA, Petitioner, v. 15 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 16 Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 13) 17 18 Petitioner Joel Valera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred 20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 2, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge determined the petition failed to 22 name a proper respondent, to show exhaustion of state remedies, and to show the petition was 23 within the applicable statute of limitations; the Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended 24 petition curing the deficiencies. (ECF No. 9.) On November 23, 2022, Petitioner filed the 25 amended petition. (ECF No. 10.) Upon review of the amended petition on December 19, 2022, 26 the assigned Magistrate Judge determined it failed to cure all stated deficiencies and issued an 27 order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 11.) The Magistrate 28 1 Judge cautioned Petitioner that failure to comply may result in an order of dismissal or a 2 recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110. (Id. at 2–3.) 3 Petitioner did not respond. On February 9, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order 4 providing Petitioner an additional 30 days to respond to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 12.) 5 Petitioner did not respond.1 6 On March 16, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 7 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure 8 to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served on 9 Petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 10 days of service. (Id.) Petitioner did not file objections, and the deadline to do so has passed. 11 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 12 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the 13 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 16, 2023 (ECF No. 13), are adopted 16 in full; 17 2. The petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; and 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 22 May 30, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 On February 3, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge received notice Petitioner’s address changed pursuant to a new case Petitioner filed on January 31, 2023. See Docket. Petitioner did not file a Notice of Change of Address with this Court as is required by Local Rule 182(f). 1 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.
