(HC) Manley v. Campbell

Opinion

NABIL IBN MANLEY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00039-JDP (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent. On February 22, 2023, I screened petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and notified him that it failed to state a viable claim. ECF No. 6. I granted him thirty days to file an amended petition. Id. Petitioner subsequently requested two extensions of time to file an amended petition, both of which I granted. See ECF Nos. 8 & 10. The most recent extension granted petitioner until June 2, 2023, to file an amended petition. When petitioner did not file an amended petition by that date, on July 11, 2023, I ordered him to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. ECF No. 11. I notified him that if he wished to continue with this action he must, within twenty-one days, file an amended petition. Id. I also warned him that failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. The deadline has passed, and petitioner has neither filed an amended petition nor otherwise responded to the July 11, 2023 order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, for the reasons set forth in the court’s July 11, 2023 order. 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ September 19, 2023 Q_-——— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE