(HC) Salazar v. Pfeiffer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND JOSEPH SALAZAR, No. 2:20-cv-1000 JAM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey court orders.

22 On August 21, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on grounds including the pendency of state court proceedings that would, if successful, render petitioner’s claims moot.

24 ECF No. 11. Rather than proceeding to consider the merits of the motion, the undersigned ordered status reports on the progress of proceedings in San Joaquin Superior Court case number STK-CR-FECOD-2016-0005113. ECF Nos. 15, 18, 20. Responsibility for filing these reports was originally assigned to Respondent, ECF Nos. 15, 18, but was reassigned to Petitioner on July 19, 2021. ECF No. 20.

1 On November 16, 2021, because Petitioner had failed to timely file a quarterly report, the || undersigned issued a further order directing him to do so within fourteen days. ECF No. 21.

3 || Petitioner failed to respond. On January 18, 2022, the court ordered Petitioner to show cause || within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to obey court orders. ECF || No. 22. Petitioner has made no showing of cause, nor has he responded to the Court’s order in || any way. For these reasons, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be dismissed for || failure to prosecute and for failure to obey court orders.

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. This action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey court || orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110; 11 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be DENIED as moot; and 12 3. The Court DECLINE to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 13 2253.

14 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. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22 | DATED: March 8, 2022 ~ 23 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE