-KJN (HC) Williams v. DVI - Warden, No. 2:2011cv01674 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/15/2011. It is ORDERED that Clerk assign a District Judge to this case. Judge Kimberly J. Mueller is ASSIGNED to this matter; it is also RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Within 21 days after being served with these F/Rs, petitioner may file written Objections with Court. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
-KJN (HC) Williams v. DVI - Warden Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY JAMES WILLIAMS, Petitioner, 11 12 vs. 13 No. 2:11-cv-1674 KJN P DVI-WARDEN, ORDER AND Respondent. 14 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 By an order filed June 24, 2011, petitioner was ordered to file, within thirty days, 16 17 an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, or request the voluntary 18 dismissal of this action without prejudice. Petitioner was cautioned that failure to timely comply 19 with the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 20 prejudice.1 The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court’s 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The court also noted that petitioner indicated he had not exhausted his state court remedies before filing the instant federal petition. The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Also, petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 order and has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the 2 3 Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and IT IS RECOMMENDED that this 4 action be dismissed without prejudice. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 7 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 8 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 10 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 11 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 DATED: August 15, 2011 13 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 will1674.fpf 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.