govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-02702-2

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
LISA PEREZ, formerly known as LISA 
BELYEW, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
LAVELLE PARKER, Warden, 
Respondent. 
 
No.  2:25-cv-02702-DC-CSK (HC) 
 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
(Doc. Nos. 5, 6) 
 
 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 March 10, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, 
which were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 6.) To date, neither party has 
filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 
 Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the findings and 
recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served.  It is Petitioner’s responsibility to 
keep the court updated on her current address. See Barboza v. MCSO Jail Div., No. 1:23-cv-0753-
JLT-EPG, 2023 WL 5515987, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023). Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 
Case 2:25-cv-02702-DC-CSK     Document 8     Filed 07/29/26     Page 1 of 2
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2  
 
 
service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 
 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct.  See Orand v. United States, 602 
F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979).  The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).  Having 
reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 
and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 
 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. The findings and recommendations filed on March 10, 2026 (Doc. No. 6) are 
ADOPTED in full;  
 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED; 
3. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED as 
having been rendered moot by this order; 
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and 
3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.        
§ 2253. 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:     July 28, 2026     
 
 
___________________________ 
Dena Coggins 
United States District Judge 
Case 2:25-cv-02702-DC-CSK     Document 8     Filed 07/29/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight