(HC) Bradway v. Burton

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 20, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00986
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL J. BRADWAY, No. 2:21-cv-0986 KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROBERT BURTON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 14, 2021, petitioner filed a motion to amend his 19 petition to change the respondent to Robert Burton, current warden of California Health Care 20 Facility where petitioner is currently housed. Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion is 21 granted; Robert Burton is substituted for respondent Yashodara Rao. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); see 22 Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 23 In addition, on June 11, 2021, petitioner was ordered to file, within thirty days, an in 24 forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 25 1915(a). The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court’s 26 order and has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. 27 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 5) is granted; and 1 2. Robert Burton, current warden of the California Health Care Facility, is substituted as 2 || respondent; and 3 3. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this case. 4 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 8 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 || Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 10 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 11 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 || Dated: July 20, 2021 i Aectl Aharon 14 KENDALL J.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 6 /brad0986..fifp.hab 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28