Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01485/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01485-0/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-

11cv1485

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM THORNTON, Civil No. 11cv1485 BEN (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

MATTHEW CATE, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

 Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he is

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

DUPLICATIVE PETITION

In his Petition, Thornton challenges the requirement that he register as a sex offender in

the state of California as a condition of parole, based on an underlying conviction suffered in the

state of Tennessee. (See Pet. at 5-10.) Petitioner already has a petition for habeas corpus

Case 3:11-cv-01485-BEN-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/20/11 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-

11cv1485

pending before this Court in which he challenges the Tennessee conviction and the California

requirement that he register as a sex offender. (See Thornton v. Strainer, 11cv0190 LAB

(JMA).) In that case, the Court has ordered a response to the petition, due no later than August

30, 2011. (See id., ECF No. 6.) The Court may dismiss a duplicative petition as frivolous if it

“merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Because the current Petition merely repeats claims

already raised in Case Number 11cv0190 LAB (JMA), the Petition is dismissed as duplicative.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and

the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2011

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01485-BEN-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 2