Opinion
2:21-cv-00601 GGH P
06-24-2021
FELIX R. AYALA, Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus . ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c).
On April 9, 2021, the undersigned issued an order denying petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a habeas petition. ECF No. 3. In addition, the undersigned granted petitioner sixty days from the date of the order to file a habeas petition in order to properly commence this action as required by Rule 3 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. Id. at 1. Petitioner was further informed he must either pay the required filing fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Finally, petitioner was warned that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. Id. The deadline has now passed, and petitioner has not responded to the court's orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a district judge to this action.
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); 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)(1). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).