(HC) Reyes v. Cisneros ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSBALDO REYES, No. 1:22-cv-01490-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION 13 v. [TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE] 14 THERESA CISNEROS, 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 November 19 18, 2022. The petition does not challenge the underlying conviction; rather, it challenges 20 Petitioner’s gang validation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 21 (“CDCR”). After conducting a preliminary review, the Court found it lacked habeas jurisdiction 22 to consider the claims. The Court dismissed the petition; however, Petitioner was granted an 23 opportunity to file an amended petition to present a cognizable claim. (Doc. 5.) The time allotted 24 to file an amended petition has passed, and Petitioner has not filed an amended petition. Thus, for 25 the reasons stated in the order dismissing the petition, the Court will recommend the petition be 26 DISMISSED. 27 ORDER 28 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district 1 judge to this case. 2 RECOMMENDATION 3 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED for lack of 4 jurisdiction. 5 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 6 assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 7 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 8 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and 9 Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should 10 be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will 11 then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: January 13, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28