United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

(HC) Wallace v. Pearson

(HC) Wallace v. Pearson
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided October 13, 2021
(HC) Wallace v. Pearson

Trial Court Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MILO WALLACE, No. 2:21-cv-00927 TLN DB P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNKNOWN, 14 Respondent.

16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

17 On June 1, 2021, the court dismissed petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus with leave to file an amended petition within thirty days. (ECF No. 3.) On August 26, 2021, the court ordered the petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended petition. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner was warned that failure to comply with court orders would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 3.)

22 More than thirty days have passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition, responded to the order to show cause, requested an extension of time, or otherwise responded to the court’s orders. Accordingly, it will be recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute.

26 //// //// //// 1 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).

3 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, petitioner may file written objections | withthe court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

9 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10 | Dated: October 13, 2021 B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | pps DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/wall0927.fr.dism

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.