Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02301/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02301-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Petitioner,

v.

YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et 

al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv-2301 CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. Since the recent transfer of this action to the Eastern District of California, petitioner 

has filed documents claiming he is being retaliated against for this lawsuit and fears for his life.1 

As best the court can determine, he wishes to withdraw the petition. (ECF Nos. 7 & 8.) 

A review of court records indicates that petitioner is already proceeding with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus challenging the conviction and sentence challenged in this action. See

Turner v. Richardson, 2:13-cv-0454 WBS AC. Petitioner is represented by counsel in that case, 

 

1 According to court records, petitioner has filed dozens of lawsuits in this district, including three 

this year, and is currently represented by counsel in one case. Under the circumstances, the court 

has no reason to believe plaintiff’s life is in imminent danger due to his filing of this suit.

Case 2:15-cv-02301-JAM-CKD Document 9 Filed 11/20/15 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

which proceeds on the Second Amended Petition filed December 22, 2014. As the instant action 

is duplicative, the undersigned will recommend that it be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for writ (ECF No. 7) is denied; and 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 

case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

Petitioner is 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). 

Dated: November 20, 2015

2 / turn2301.dup

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02301-JAM-CKD Document 9 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 2