Francisco Hernandez v. United States of America

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, No. 2:25-cv-2039-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is incarcerated in federal prison. Petitioner’s filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that was transferred to this judicial district on July 21, 2025. ECF No. 5.

20 By an order filed August 4, 2025, petitioner was ordered to sign a copy of his § 2241 petition and to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or to pay the appropriate filing fee, within thirty days, or his application would be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court’s order, has not filed a signed copy of his petition or an in forma pauperis affidavit, and has not paid the appropriate filing fee.

25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this action to a district judge.

27 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

28 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 twenty one days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner 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.” Petitioner 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).

8 | DATED: September 26, 2025 10 / 11 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE