(HC) Mirzada v. Wolf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDUL GHAFFAR MIRZADA, Case No. 2:20-cv-01250-JAM-JDP (PC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND

CHAD WOLF, et al. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL RULES

Respondents.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Petitioner, through his counsel, filed a habeas petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 1. The petition was subsequently transferred to this district. On June 22, 2020, the Clerk of Court notified petitioner’s counsel, Sergio Valdovinos, that he was not admitted to practice in this district. ECF No. 5. On October 16, 2020, petitioner was ordered to show cause within fourteen days why the petition should not be dismissed due to his counsel’s failure to obtain admission to practice in this district. ECF No. 7. Alternatively, petitioner was granted fourteen days to file a substitution of attorney showing that he retained admitted counsel or that he intended to proceed pro se.

To date, plaintiff has not responded to the October 16, 2020 order. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute failure, failure to comply with court orders, and for failure to comply with the court’s local rules.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ January 21, 2021 ow JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE