From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 3, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-1047-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-1047-JAM-EFB P

08-03-2015

DAVID EARL GRAY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN RICK HILL, Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 10, 2015, the district judge adopted the undersigned's findings and recommendations, granted respondent's motion to dismiss, and directed petitioner to file an amended petition to delete his uncognizable (Claims 5(K), 5(L), and 5(P)), unexhausted (Claims 5(J), 5(M), 5(N), 5(O), 5(Q), and 6), and untimely (Claim 8) claims within thirty days of the date of that order.

The time period for acting has passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise responded to that order.

Petitioner did file an interlocutory appeal from the district judge's order. As that order was not certified for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, on July 30, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. --------

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Local Rule 110.

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." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). DATED: August 3, 2015.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Gray v. Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 3, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-1047-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015)
Case details for

Gray v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:DAVID EARL GRAY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN RICK HILL, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 3, 2015

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-1047-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015)