(HC) Sherman, et al v. People of California, et al, No. 2:2002cv00373 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. on 11/30/05. 42 Judgment is VACATED. Clerk shall serve 10/21/05 Findings and Recommendations 38 on petitioner at current address. Within 30 days after being served with F/Rs, petitioner may file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Sherman, et al v. People of California, et al Doc. 43 Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 11/30/2005 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH A. SHERMAN, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-02-0373 FCD DAD P vs. CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., 14 Respondents. ORDER / 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this application for a writ of 16 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 21, 2005, findings and 18 recommendations were issued which recommended that petitioner’s application be denied. 19 Petitioner’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned as undeliverable and 20 petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations. On November 22, 2005, 21 judgment was issued denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. 22 On November 17, 2005, petitioner filed a letter in which he informs the court that 23 he was transferred to another jail between October 15, 2005, and November 2, 2005, and did not 24 receive any mail. He requests that any returned mail be re-served at his current address. This 25 letter did not come to the court’s attention until after service of the November 22, 2005 26 judgment. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:02-cv-00373-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 11/30/2005 Page 2 of 2 1 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The November 22, 2005 judgment is vacated; 3 2. The Clerk of Court shall serve the October 21, 2005 findings and 4 recommendations on petitioner at his current address, listed on the November 17, 2005 letter; and 5 3. Within thirty days after being served with the October 21, 2005 findings and 6 recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all 7 parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after 9 service of the objections. Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 10 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 11 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 DATED:November 30, 2005 13 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. FRANK C. DAMRELL JR. United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
