Alexander P. Lees v. Carlos Arce

E.D. California

Alexander P. Lees v. Carlos Arce

DecidedSeptember 29, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03296

StatusUnknown

This text of Alexander P. Lees v. Carlos Arce (Alexander P. Lees v. Carlos Arce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander P. Lees v. Carlos Arce, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER P. LEES, Case No. 2:24-cv-03296-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CARLOS ARCE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Alexander P. Lees (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On August 26, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court has reviewed the file and finds 28 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 1 analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 26, 2025 (ECF No. 16.) are adopted in 4 full; 5 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with 6 court orders; 7 3. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED as moot; 8 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 9 2253; and 10 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to enter judgment accordingly. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Date: September 26, 2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER P. LEES, Case No. 2:24-cv-03296-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CARLOS ARCE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Alexander P. Lees (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302. 21 On August 26, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court has reviewed the file and finds 28 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 1 analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 26, 2025 (ECF No. 16.) are adopted in 4 full; 5 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with 6 court orders; 7 3. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED as moot; 8 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 9 2253; and 10 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to enter judgment accordingly. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Date: September 26, 2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alexander P. Lees v. Carlos Arce, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-p-lees-v-carlos-arce-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack