Opinion
CIV S-05-1119 MCE GGH PS.
October 25, 2005
FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS
This action has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). Annamarie Jones is the daughter of petitioner Verla Jones, and is proceeding in this action pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus as a next friend. Annamarie Jones seeks to have her mother released from a nursing home.
On July 1, 2005, petitioner was directed to file an amended petition which names the proper respondent. On July 11, 2005, petitioner filed a pleading captioned "amended petition;" however, it did not contain any claims, but only listed individuals who might be proper respondents. On August 10, 2005, petitioner was given another opportunity to file a second amended petition within thirty days which included all of her claims and named the proper respondent. Petitioner was warned that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the petition. On September 16, 2005, more than thirty days after instructed, plaintiff filed a letter which states that once a petition is filed, an evidentiary hearing must be set and the person must be released. Petitioner did not comply with this court's orders and did not file a second amended petition.
Good Cause Appearing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10) 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." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).