Warden

(HC) Munoz v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 20232:23-cv-00670California375 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALBERTO MUNOZ, No. 2:23-cv-00670-EFB (HC) Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

WARDEN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel in this petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 8, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. ECF No. 8. On August 8, 2023, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 10. That order gave petitioner twenty-one (21) days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Id. The order also warned petitioner that his failure to respond to the motion to dismiss would result in the dismissal of this action. Id. The time for acting has passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition, nor has he otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of…

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.