Warren v. Sherman

Full title: OMAR WARREN, Petitioner, v. STU SHERMAN, et al., Respondents.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 4, 2019

No. 1:19-cv-01007-DAD-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-01007-DAD-JLT (HC)

12-04-2019

OMAR WARREN, Petitioner, v. STU SHERMAN, et al., Respondents.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 8)

Petitioner Omar Warren is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 1.) After conducting a preliminary review of the petition, the assigned magistrate judge found that the petitioner had not exhausted his claims by first presenting them to the state's highest court and may have filed his habeas petition in the wrong court.¹ (Doc. No. 5.) Accordingly, petitioner was ordered to show cause as to why the pending petition should not be dismissed due to his failure to exhaust his claims.

1 The petition for writ of habeas corpus is captioned for filing in the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1.) --------

Petitioner filed a response in which he stated that he had made a mistake in filing the habeas petition in federal court and asked to "recall" the petition. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, on October 8, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of the petition. (Doc. No. 8.) Those findings and recommendation were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within ten (10) days from the date of service of that order. No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed October 8, 2019 (Doc. No. 8), are adopted;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4 , 2019

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE