From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Craig v. D'Agostini

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 6, 2022
2:21-cv-00890-DAD-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00890-DAD-JDP (HC)

10-06-2022

NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, Petitioner, v. JOHN D'AGOSTINI, et al., Respondents.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Petitioner initially sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 1, and then subsequently moved to convert his petition into a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action, ECF No. 3. Before the court ruled on the motion to convert, petitioner filed a motion to consolidate habeas corpus petitions. ECF No. 5. I issued findings and recommendations granting petitioner's motion to convert, but while the recommendations were still pending, petitioner filed an amended habeas corpus petition. ECF No. 9. On March 10, 2022, I withdrew my findings and recommendations and ordered petitioner to submit an amended habeas corpus petition or a section 1983 complaint. ECF No. 15. Petitioner elected to do neither.

On June 9, 2022, I ordered petitioner to file, within twenty-one days, an amended habeas corpus petition, section 1983 complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. ECF No. 18. I also warned him that failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id.

The deadline has passed, and petitioner has not filed an amended habeas corpus petition or section 1983 complaint, nor otherwise responded to the June 9, 2022 order. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court's June 9, 2022 order. See ECF No. 18.
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Craig v. D'Agostini

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 6, 2022
2:21-cv-00890-DAD-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Craig v. D'Agostini

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, Petitioner, v. JOHN D'AGOSTINI, et al., Respondents.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 6, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-00890-DAD-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2022)