Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-00214 DAD P
04-08-2013
JOSHUA NICKERSON, Petitioner, v. F. FOULK, Respondent.
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By an order filed February 28, 2013, petitioner was ordered to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action. The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court's order and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the appropriate filing fee.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this case to a District Judge.
Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States District Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any petitioner may file written objections with the court. 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
_____________
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE