(HC)Nunez v. Institution Oakland Center

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSE J. NUNEZ, No. 2:22-cv-01174-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND INSTITUTION OAKLAND CENTER, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent.

17 On July 2, 2022, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a county inmate serving a state court sentence imposed on April 19, 2022.

19 ECF No. 1. By order dated July 12, 2022, petitioner was directed to file a completed in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court’s order.

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district judge.

25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

27 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)(l). 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).

7 | Dated: August 22, 2022 □□ / del a CAROLYNK. DELANEY 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 15 12/nune1 174. fifp.docx