(HC) Evans v. Sisto, No. 2:2008cv02859 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/1/11 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Evans v. Sisto Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TOBY EVANS, 11 12 13 14 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2859 FCD DAD P vs. D. K. SISTO, Warden, Respondent. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therein, petitioner challenged a decision of the California 18 Board of Parole Hearings denying him parole. By order filed December 20, 2010, petitioner was 19 ordered to show cause, within thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed as moot. The 20 thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not shown cause or otherwise responded to 21 the court’s order. 22 23 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 25 District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 26 twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Findings 2 and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 3 days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 4 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 5 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In his objections petitioner may 6 address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the 7 judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district 8 court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 9 applicant). 10 DATED: February 1, 2011. 11 12 13 14 DAD:8 evans2859.dism 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.
