(HC) Rajagopal v. Stanislaus County Sheriff

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 24, 20242:23-cv-02758California740 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GOPI RAJAGOPAL, No. 2:23-cv-2758 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a Stanislaus County pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for 18 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 On January 31, 2024, petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner timely-filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis on 21 January 12, 2024, so the request for an extension of time will be denied as moot. 22 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 23 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 25 Petitioner asserts that his right to a speedy trial is being violated in Stanislaus County 26 criminal court proceedings. Federal courts cannot…

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.