(HC) Gao v. Warden, California Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JASON ZHANG GAO, Case No. 1:19-cv-01066-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DOE, Warden, DISMISS PETITION 15 Respondent. [TEN DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

19 On June 6, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Doc. 1.) On July 30, 2019, the Court determined venue was proper in the Eastern District and transferred the case to this district. (Doc.

22 7.) After conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, on August 13, 2019, the Court determined that the petition failed to state a cognizable claim and directed Petitioner to file an amended petition. (Doc. 11.) On August 28, 2019, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition.

25 (Doc. 13.) The Court reviewed the First Amended Petition on September 6, 2019, and determined that it suffered from the same deficiencies identified in its previous order. (Doc. 14.) The petition was dismissed, and Petitioner was directed to file a Second Amended Petition in compliance with Petitioner was forewarned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of the action.

3 Based on the foregoing and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s previous orders, the Court will recommend the action be dismissed with prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to state a cognizable claim and failure to comply with a court order.

6 ORDER 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case.

9 RECOMMENDATION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief, and for Petitioner's failure to comply with a court order.

13 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ten days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: October 22, 2019 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE