Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00915/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00915-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA SHWARTZ,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00915 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 15, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner

raises the following two grounds for relief: 1) incompetency during trial; and 2) insufficiency of

the evidence. This petition was assigned case number “CV F 05-00915 OWW SMS HC.” 

A review of this Court’s docket system indicates that on May 11, 2005, Petitioner filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. The action was transferred to this Court on May 27, 2005. That case was assigned

case number “CV F 05-00684 REC LJO HC.” 

The Court has reviewed both of the pending federal petitions listed above and finds that

the petitions are identical. Review of the petitions also discloses that in the first action, CV F 05-

00684 REC LJO HC, the Court has issued Findings and Recommendations that certain claims be

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim and certain claims be dismissed for

Case 1:05-cv-00915-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/07/05 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

1

 The Findings and Recommendations were issued on July 15, 2005, and have not yet been adopted by the

District Judge. 

2

failure to exhaust the state court remedies.1 In light of the duplicative nature of the petitions, the

Court finds that the instant action should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as duplicative. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 Recommendation.” 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. § 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: September 6, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00915-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2