(HC) Townsend v. Coalinga State Hospital

Opinion

REBIO RONNIE TOWNSEND, Case No. 1:23-cv-00562-SKO (HC/PC)

Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS STATE HOSPITAL, [FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE] Respondents.

Petitioner is a state civil committee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After conducting a preliminary review of the petition, the Court discovered that Petitioner raised numerous claims sounding in habeas corpus and civil rights. Petitioner was advised that he cannot pursue multiple types of actions in one case. Petitioner was provided the form complaints for both types of actions and an opportunity to file an amended petition/complaint on the form that correlates with the action he intended to pursue here, along with information pertaining to each type of action. He was granted thirty (30) days to comply with the Court’s order. Petitioner was forewarned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Petitioner has not responded in any manner. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, 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).

Dated: May 24, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE