Valdez v. Nielsen, 1:18-cv-00398-JDP. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180905632
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2018
Summary: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 13.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE JEREMY D. PETERSON , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner Santiago Estrada Valdez was detained by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at the time he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. This court issued an order requiring respondent to file a response to the petit
Summary: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 13.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE JEREMY D. PETERSON , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner Santiago Estrada Valdez was detained by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at the time he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. This court issued an order requiring respondent to file a response to the petiti..
More
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Doc. No. 13.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
JEREMY D. PETERSON, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Santiago Estrada Valdez was detained by the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at the time he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This court issued an order requiring respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. No. 6.)
Respondent has filed a response to that included a motion to dismiss the petition for mootness. (Doc. No. 13.) Respondent states Valdez has been released from custody under an order of supervision. (See id. at 1.) In support of this contention, respondent has submitted a copy of the order dated April 25, 2018. (Doc. No. 13-1.) Valdez has not responded to the motion to dismiss and several case filings have been returned to the court as undeliverable.
For these reasons:
1. The clerk of the court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this case;
2. Respondent directed to mail a copy of these findings and recommendations to petitioner at his last known address; and
3. It is recommended that:
a. respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13) be granted;
b. the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be denied as moot; and
c. the clerk be directed to close this case.
All motions must be submitted on the record, and briefs must be filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. See Local Rule 230(l). The court will grant extensions only upon a showing of good cause. If a party requires an extension, that party should file a motion for amendment of the schedule before the relevant deadline has passed and should explain in detail why an extension is required. Local Rule 110 applies to this order. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
