Latoya R. Finley-Carminer v. Sacramento County Sheriff, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LATOYA R. FINLEY-CARMINER, No. 2:25-cv-2789 DAD CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an application for writ of 19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 1, 2025, this Court 21 recommended that this action be dismissed because petitioner failed to exhaust state court 22 remedies. (ECF No. 5.) On October 7, 2025, petitioner filed objections. Upon reconsideration, 23 the findings and recommendations are vacated, and the Court screens the petition anew. 24 As set forth below, petitioner is ordered to show cause why this action should not be 25 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 26 I. PETITIONER’S ALLEGATIONS 27 In her petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner 28 …