(HC) Ramirez v. Kovranvic ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, No. 1:23-cv-00268-JLT-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION 13 v. [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 14 KOVRANVIC, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition on February 7, 19 2023. After conducting a preliminary review of the petition, the Court determined it could not 20 ascertain Petitioner’s claims because the petition did not make sense. Petitioner was granted thirty 21 (30) days leave to file an amended petition. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Petitioner has 22 failed to respond to the Court’s order. Petitioner was forewarned that failure to comply would 23 result in dismissal of the action. 24 RECOMMENDATION 25 Accordingly, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that the petition be dismissed with 26 prejudice and the action be terminated. 27 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 28 1 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 2 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 3 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 4 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 6 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 7 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 8 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: April 11, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28