Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00012-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO ARCHER, 

 aka Ricky Thomas,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00012 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a civil committed mental health patient proceeding pro se with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 11, 2006, in the

Sacramento Division of this Court. By order of January 4, 2007, the petition was transferred to

this Court. 

On January 12, 2007, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Objection To Transfer/

Request For Remand.” (Court Doc. 9.) In this motion, Petitioner requests that the Court transfer

the case back to Sacramento, preferably before Magistrate Judge Mueller, who is handling the

“original” petition. (Id. at 3.) 

As set forth by Petitioner, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity on November 1,

2000, in the Solano County Superior Court. (Court Doc. 9, at 3.) Petitioner states that he was

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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 A Court may take judicial notice of court records. See, MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 1

505 (9 Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9 cir. 1980). th th

2

removed from all mental health treatment on August 31, 2006, and has been placed in maximum

security at Corcoran State Prison. (Petition, at 10.) Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of

California Welfare and Institution Code section 7301.

The Court takes judicial notice of case number 2:04-cv-02249 MCE KJM (HC), which

Petitioner filed in the Sacramento Court on October 22, 2004. Petitioner has been appointed 1

counsel in that case and the proceedings are ongoing. In the instant petition, Petitioner is raising

the same claim(s) as that in his pending Sacramento case. Petitioner has been warned several

times to not file documents on his behalf and only through counsel. (See 2:04-cv-02249 MCE

KJM; Court Docs. 23, 40, 52.) The Court finds that the filing of the instant petition is a further 

attempt to circumvent the admonishment by the Court to not file documents on his own behalf. 

Therefore, the Court will dismiss the instant petition, and if Petitioner wishes to further present

the claims raised herein, he must do so by way of filing, through counsel, in his pending

Sacramento case. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant petition for

writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED, as DUPLICATIVE of the documents filed in case number

2:04-cv-02249 MCE KJM (HC). If Petitioner wishes to further present the claims raised herein,

he must do so by way of filing, through counsel, in his pending Sacramento case. 

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3