Miguel Garcia Romo v. The People of the State of California

E.D. California

Miguel Garcia Romo v. The People of the State of California

DecidedSeptember 15, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03301

StatusUnknown

This text of Miguel Garcia Romo v. The People of the State of California (Miguel Garcia Romo v. The People of the State of California) 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

Miguel Garcia Romo v. The People of the State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL GARCIA ROMO, No. 2:24-cv-03301-DJC-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ORDER CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 22 herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that 23 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 24 days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 26 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 27 reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by proper analysis. In addition, having considered the 1 | factors described in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court 2 | finds that dismissal is appropriate. The Court notes that in addition to failing to 3 | update his address, Plaintiff has failed to file an in forma pauperis affidavit as ordered 4 | bythe Magistrate Judge on December 5, 2024. (See ECF No. 4.) 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5) are adopted in full; 7 2. The petition is dismissed for failure to prosecute; 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 9 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 10 U.S.C. § 2253 as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 11 of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _September 12, 2025 “Daniel A CoD tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 1s UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL GARCIA ROMO, No. 2:24-cv-03301-DJC-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ORDER CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 22 herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that 23 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 24 days. Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 26 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 27 reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by proper analysis. In addition, having considered the 1 | factors described in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court 2 | finds that dismissal is appropriate. The Court notes that in addition to failing to 3 | update his address, Plaintiff has failed to file an in forma pauperis affidavit as ordered 4 | bythe Magistrate Judge on December 5, 2024. (See ECF No. 4.) 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5) are adopted in full; 7 2. The petition is dismissed for failure to prosecute; 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 9 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 10 U.S.C. § 2253 as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 11 of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _September 12, 2025 “Daniel A CoD tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 1s UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miguel Garcia Romo v. The People of the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miguel-garcia-romo-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack