Phieffer

(HC) Monroe v. Phieffer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 20202:19-cv-02174California587 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 D’ANDRE MONROE, No. 2:19-CV-2174-MCE-DMC-P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS C. PHEIFFER, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner initiated this action on October 28, 2019, with a motion for a 120-day extension of time to file an operative petition. On November 25, 2019, the court denied petitioner’s motion and directed petitioner to file an operative petition within 30 days. Petitioner was warned that failure to file a petition may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, petitioner has not complied.1 / / / / / / / / /

Petitioner states that he has filed a second action with an operative petition. Petitioner contends this constitutes compliance. A review of the court’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.