Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00974/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00974-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00974 LJO GSA HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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 3, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court, and the petition was assigned case number “1:07-CV-00974 LJO NEW (DLB) HC.” On

August 14, 2007, the District Court issued an order dismissing the petition as duplicative of the

petition filed in case number “1:07-CV-00554 LJO DLB HC.” That order was summarily reversed

by the Ninth Circuit on Appeal as the petitions were not in fact duplicative. 

The Court has reviewed the docket and identified the error. It is not the petition in case

number “1:07-CV-00554 LJO DLB HC” of which the instant petition is duplicative. It is the petition

in case number “1:07-CV-00277 LJO SMS HC.” 

Case 1:07-cv-00974-LJO-GSA Document 19 Filed 12/03/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

In the petition filed in case number “1:07-CV-00277 LJO SMS HC,” Petitioner raised six

claims challenging his conviction in People v. Washington, case number “06CM7011,” which

resulted in parole revocation. The petition was dismissed with prejudice on April 11, 2007. In the

petition filed in this case, Petitioner raises six claims for relief challenging the same conviction in

People v. Washington, case number “06CM7011,” and raising essentially the same claims. 

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 Lawrence J. O’Neill,

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: November 30, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00974-LJO-GSA Document 19 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2