(HC) Lee v. Figueroa, No. 2:2014cv02724 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/08/15 ordering that within 30 days of service of this order, petitioner shall 1) file objections to the 6/17/15 findings and recommendations, 2) file an in forma pauperis affidavit, 3) pay the filing fee, or 4) file a notice telling the court that he is no longer continuing with this case. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Lee v. Figueroa Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FARAJI LAMONT LEE, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2724 MCE AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER FRED FIGUEROA, Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 17, 2015, findings and recommendations were issued recommending dismissal of 20 the case due to petitioner’s failure to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate 21 filing fee. ECF No. 6. Petitioner did not object to the findings and recommendations and the case 22 was dismissed on July 21, 2015. ECF Nos. 7, 8. On August 11, 2015, the court received a letter 23 from petitioner in which he indicated that he did not receive the June 17, 2015 findings and 24 recommendations and that his first notice that he had been required to take action was the order 25 dismissing his case. ECF No. 9. On September 21, 2015, the district judge vacated the order 26 dismissing the case and directed petitioner to file objections to the June 17, 2015 findings and 27 recommendations, file an in forma pauperis affidavit, or pay the filing fee within thirty days. 28 In re-opening the case, the court noted that it appeared from the petition that petitioner 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 may have filed his action in the wrong court. ECF No. 10 at 2. From the petition, it appeared that 2 petitioner was seeking to have his felony convictions resentenced as misdemeanors pursuant to 3 California Proposition 47 (2014). Id. The court advised petitioner that if this was in fact the 4 relief he sought, then his claim needed to be pursued in the trial court where he was convicted. 5 Id. The court expressed no opinion as to petitioner’s eligibility for resentencing. Id. at 3 n.1. 6 ECF No. 10. 7 The thirty day period has passed and petitioner has not responded to the September 21, 8 2015 order in any way. It is unclear whether petitioner’s lack of response is because he has 9 chosen to pursue an action in state court or if it is due to some other reason. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of service of this order, 11 petitioner shall (1) file objections to the June 17, 2015 findings and recommendations, (2) file an 12 in forma pauperis affidavit, (3) pay the filing fee, or (4) file a notice telling the court that he is no 13 longer continuing with this case. Failure to comply with this order will result in a 14 recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 15 DATED: December 8, 2015 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.
