Opinion
1:22-cv-01490-SKO (HC)
01-13-2023
OSBALDO REYES, Petitioner, v. THERESA CISNEROS, Respondent.
[TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE]
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION
SHEILA K. OBERTO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition on November 18, 2022. The petition does not challenge the underlying conviction; rather, it challenges Petitioner's gang validation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). After conducting a preliminary review, the Court found it lacked habeas jurisdiction to consider the claims. The Court dismissed the petition; however, Petitioner was granted an opportunity to file an amended petition to present a cognizable claim. (Doc. 5.) The time allotted to file an amended petition has passed, and Petitioner has not filed an amended petition. Thus, for the reasons stated in the order dismissing the petition, the Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.