(TEMP)(HC) Knight v. People of the State of California, No. 2:2014cv02565 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/13/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(TEMP)(HC) Knight v. People of the State of California Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VONTRE KNIGHT, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-2565-TLN-EFB P (TEMP) v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STU SHERMAN, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ 17 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 5, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner failed to 19 20 timely file an opposition, and on June 17, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd issued an 21 order and directed petitioner to show cause in writing why the court should not grant the pending 22 motion to dismiss the petition. Judge Drozd’s order gave petitioner twenty-one (21) days to file 23 any opposition and warned petitioner that failure to do so could be deemed a waiver of any 24 opposition to granting the motion. The twenty-one (21) days have now passed, and petitioner has 25 not filed an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss or otherwise responded to the court’s 26 June 17, 2015 order. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties 9 are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 10 the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 11 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 In any objections he elects to file, petitioner may address whether a certificate of 13 appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 14 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a 15 certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 16 DATED: November 13, 2015. 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.