(HC) Fowlie v. Sisto, No. 2:2008cv02744 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/20/11 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice; 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)
Download PDF
(HC) Fowlie v. Sisto Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRIAN FOWLIE, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner, No. 2: 08-cv-2744 GEB KJN P Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS vs. D.K. SISTO, / Petitioner is proceeding without counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the 2006 decision by the California Board of 18 Parole Hearings (“BPH”) finding him unsuitable for parole. On February 4, 2011, the 19 undersigned recommended that the petition be denied. 20 On February 28, 2011, respondent filed a notice stating that on February 11, 2011 21 petitioner was released on parole. Petitioner did not file a notice of change of address containing 22 his new address. Accordingly, on March 9, 2011 petitioner was ordered to show cause why this 23 action should not be dismissed for his failure to file a notice of change of address. 24 Petitioner is proceeding with another action in this court in which he filed a notice 25 of change of address on March 10, 2011. See 2: 09-cv-0881 EFP, Dkt. No. 22. Accordingly, on 26 March 14, 2011 petitioner’s address in the instant action was updated to reflect the address 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 contained in his notice of change of address filed in 09-0881. On March 16, 2011, the March 9, 2 2011 order to show cause was re-served on petitioner at this new address. 3 Neither order to show cause served on petitioner was returned unserved. 4 However, petitioner has not responded to either order to show cause. Based on petitioner’s 5 failure to respond to the orders to show cause, the undersigned recommends that this action be 6 dismissed for petitioner’s failure to respond to the court’s orders. 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 days 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.” Any reply to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 15 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 16 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: April 20, 2011 18 19 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 fow2744.dis 22 23 24 25 26 2