Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissal with prejudice of a state prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition because the petitioner failed to file an amended petition after the court identified deficiencies and granted leave to amend. The court also directs the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge and advises the parties of the fourteen-day deadline for filing objections.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the habeas petition should be dismissed after petitioner failed to file an amended petition within the court-ordered deadline despite being warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal and closure of the case.
- Whether the clerk should assign a district judge to review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation.
Holdings
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice and closure of the case because petitioner failed to file an amended petition within the court-ordered period after being warned of the consequences.
- The clerk was directed to assign a district judge to the case for consideration of the findings and recommendation.
Key quotations
“For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Court’s order dismissing the petition (Doc. 4), the Court recommends the petition be DISMISSED with prejudice and the case be CLOSED.” (at 2)
“This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” (at 2)
Factual background
Dontrell Collins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed a pleading seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but the pleading did not identify cognizable habeas grounds or name a proper respondent. After receiving leave and thirty days to file a compliant amended petition, Collins did not do so.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a pleading styled as an appellate ex parte notice of appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on February 14, 2025. The court determined that the pleading failed to present cognizable grounds for relief and failed to name a proper respondent, dismissed it with leave to amend on February 20, 2025, and allowed thirty days for amendment. After petitioner failed to amend despite being warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal and closure of the case, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice. The clerk was directed to assign a district judge, and the parties were given fourteen days to object.