Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02387/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02387-1/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

CHARLES R. SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

FRED FOULK, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 13-cv-2387-KJN-P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 21, 2013, the undersigned granted 

petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended dismissal of this action 

without prejudice. (ECF No. 4.) As the court explained (id. at 2):

The court’s records reveal that petitioner filed a prior federal 

petition for writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and 

sentence challenged in the instant case. See Smith v. McDonald, 

Case No. 2:09-cv-02967-MCE-GGH P. The previous petition was 

filed on October 23, 2009, and was denied on the merits by orders 

filed April 9, 2012, and March 8, 2013. (Id., ECF Nos. 51, 55.) 

Before petitioner can proceed with the instant petition, he 

must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3). Therefore, the instant petition must be dismissed 

without prejudice to its refiling should petitioner obtain such 

authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit.

Case 2:13-cv-02387-KJM-KJN Document 6 Filed 12/18/13 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

Petitioner thereafter filed a notice of consent to proceed pursuant to the jurisdiction of the 

undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes. (ECF No. 5.) 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Local Rule 

305(a). Petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations, and there is no 

basis for modifying the undersigned’s prior conclusion that this action should be dismissed.

For these reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall: (a) redesignate the undersigned’s findings and 

recommendations filed November 21, 2013 (ECF No. 4) as an Order; and (b) withdraw the 

assignment of a district judge in this action; 

2. For the reasons stated in this court’s order filed November 21, 2013, this action is 

dismissed without prejudice; and

3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 18, 2013

/smit2387.kjnjo

Case 2:13-cv-02387-KJM-KJN Document 6 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 2