Lucio Justo Ramos Carrillo v. San Joaquin County Sheriff
Lucio Justo Ramos Carrillo v. San Joaquin County Sheriff
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUCIO JUSTO RAMOS CARRILLO, No. 2:25-cv-1927 CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF, 15 Respondent. 16 17 By order filed September 5, 2025, petitioner’s habeas application was dismissed and thirty 18 days’ leave to file an amended application was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, 19 and petitioner has not responded to the court’s order. 20 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Court has 21 considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 22 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 23 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 24 Bonzelet,
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 25 move forward without petitioner’s participation, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of 26 dismissal. 27 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 28 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and ] IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 2 || 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 6 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 || Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 | specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 9 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 | Dated: October 21, 2025 4 aA 1 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 || /1/carr1927.fta.hab 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown