Zuniga

(HC) Lafond v. Zuniga

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 8, 20232:22-cv-01093California497 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAOUL LAFOND, No. 2:22-cv-1093 AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER and RAPHAEL ZUNIGA, WARDEN, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 13, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action on various subject matter and jurisdictional grounds. ECF No. 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), petitioner had twenty-one days to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion. Petitioner, however, failed to file a response within the time allotted. As a result, on January 18, 2023, the court ordered petitioner to respond within thirty days. ECF No. 15. More than thirty days have passed, and petitioner has neither filed a…

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.