(HC) DeSpenza v. Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, No. 2:2014cv01212 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/10/2014 DENYING 1 Motion for Injunctive Relief and DISMISSING this action without prejudice for the reason set forth in the 4 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS. To the extent petitioner sought habeas relief, the court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSS H. DE SPENZA, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. ORDER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents. 16 17 No. 2:14-cv-1212 KJN P Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion styled, Motion for Order 18 for Statute Enforcement.” (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 9, 2014, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations herein which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Subsequently, petitioner consented 23 to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 24 Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. However, on 25 June 23, 2014, petitioner filed a second consent to proceed before the undersigned for all 26 purposes. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 1) is denied; 1 1 2 3 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the June 9, 2014 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4); and 3. To the extent petitioner sought habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court 4 declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 5 Dated: July 10, 2014 6 7 desp1212.800.hc 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.