(HC) Bretz v. United States District Court

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DREW PATTERSON BRETZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00651-SKO (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Respondent.

On May 7, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc 1.) After conducting a preliminary review of the petition, the Court determined that the petition failed to present any cognizable grounds for relief, failed to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies, and failed to name a proper respondent. Therefore, on May 12, 2020, the Court dismissed the petition and directed Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty days. (Doc. 4.) Over thirty days have passed and Petitioner has failed to comply. Petitioner was forewarned that failure to file an amended petition within the allotted time would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case. For the foregoing reasons and for reasons stated in the Court’s order dismissing the petition (Doc. 4), the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to present a cognizable ground for relief, failure to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies, failure to name a proper respondent, and failure to comply with a court order. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ten days after service of the 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). Petitioner is 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). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: June 19, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE