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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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 November 10, 2025, this 21 Court ordered petitioner to show cause, within fourteen days, why this action should not be 22 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Fourteen days have passed, and petitioner failed to respond or 23 otherwise show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Accordingly, this Court 24 recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 25 I. PETITIONER’S ALLEGATIONS 26 In her petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner 27 challenges a pending arrest warrant issued in Sacramento County,…