(HC) Lane v. Superior Court, County of Sacramento, CA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMORRIS LANE, No. 2:19-cv-02320 TLN DB P

Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO, CA,

Respondent.

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 17

U.S.C. § 2254. By order dated June 7, 2021, the court ordered petitioner to inform the court whether he had exhausted his claims before the highest state court. (ECF No. 12.) Petitioner was informed that if he had not presented these claims to the highest state court, the petition must be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff was given thirty days to inform the court as to whether he had presented any federal constitutional claims to the California Supreme court. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to abide by the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.)

Thirty days have passed. Plaintiff has not informed the court if he believes he exhausted these claims, requested additional time to file any of these documents, updated his address, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

For the reasons state above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: September 27, 2021

B ORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ppaa

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Habeas/R/lane2320.fr.dism