Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02663/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02663-2/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

 

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

John C. Montue,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2663 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

Teresa A. Schwartz, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner is a state prisoner claiming parole proceedings

in July of 1997 violated his constitutional right to due process.

June 15, 2005, respondent moved to dismiss because the

petition is successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and cannot be

filed without prior authorization of the court of appeals. 

Petitioner filed a prior habeas petition in this court based on

the same factual predicate, Montue v. Dept. of Corrections, Civ.

S 98-1580 LKK JFM, and the court entered judgment for respondent

March 16, 2001.

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 12 Filed 11/29/05 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

2

Petitioner opposed dismissal June 24, 2005. He relies on

the Ninth Circuit order number 04-75180, filed November 22, 2004,

which denied petitioner’s application to file a second or

successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, yet directed

petitioner to proceed by filing a habeas petition in district

court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Exhibit A to opposition.

Respondent did not reply to petitioner’s opposition.

Governing case law favors respondent, see White v. Lambert,

370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004), Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061

(9th Cir. 2004), but dismissal without considering the effect of

the Ninth Circuit’s order number 04-75180 would be improvident.

Accordingly, respondent’s June 15, 2005, motion to dismiss

is denied without prejudice. Respondent shall further respond to

the petition within 30 days. The response may take the form of a

motion to dismiss based on § 2244(d) (addressing order number 04-

75180), time-bar, res judicata or any other ground.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 12 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2