Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00012-4/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

LEO ARCHER, )

 aka Ricky Thomas, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00012-LJO-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a civil committed mental health patient

proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 19, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as duplicative of the documents filed in case number

2:04-cv-02249 MCE KJM (HC). These Findings and Recommendations

were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections

were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service

of that order. On July 20, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to

the Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 This Court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and 1

without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation

to matters at issue.” U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo,

Inc., 971 F.2d 244 (9 Cir.1992); see also MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d th

500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th cir. 1980).

2

In his objections, Petitioner strongly contends that the

instant petition is not duplicative of the claim(s) raised in case

number 1:04-cv-02249 MCE KJM (HC). To the contrary, the Court

takes judicial notice of the fact that on August 8, 2007, in case

number 1:04-cv-02249, Petitioner's counsel, Stephanie M. Adraktas,

filed a motion to stay the proceeding and notice of related cases

pursuant to Local Rule 83-123. (Court Doc. 56.) There, Ms. 1

Adraktas states that on June 26, 2007, "the California Court of

Appeals issued an opinion and order remanding petitioner's case to

the trial court for a new trial on the issue of restoration of his

sanity." (Id. at p. 2:20-21.) Counsel further states that she

"also just discovered that petitioner has filed two separate

federal habeas corpus actions requesting the same relief. Pursuant

to Local Rule 83-123, undersigned counsel is providing notice to

this court of the pendency of those two actions." (Id. at p.3:2-

4.) Thus, as counsel states, Petitioner is seeking and/or has 

received the relief he has requested in the instant petition. As

such, dismissal of the petition is warranted. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 19, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as

duplicative of the documents filed in case number 2:04-cv-02249 MCE

KJM (HC); 

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment for Respondent and to

close this action; and,

4. If Petitioner wishes to further present the claims raised

herein, he must do so by way of filing, through counsel, in his

pending Sacramento case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/17/07 Page 3 of 3