Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02618/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02618-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME ACOSTA,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11cv2618-DMS (BGS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

F. GONZALEZ, Warden et al.,

Respondents.

On June 14, 2011, Petitioner Jaime Acosta, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, seeking relief from a restitution fine imposed

in connection with his murder conviction. (Acosta v. Gonzalez, 11cv1313-DMS (BGS).) Because

Petitioner was not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and did not meet the in custody

requirement of section 2254, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Bailey v. Hill,

599 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2010). On November 9, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.

Section 2241seeking relief from the same restitution fine. The petition was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section

636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). On August 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report

and Recommendation recommending to dismiss the pending petition as duplicative of the previouslyfiled petition.

- 1 -

Case 3:11-cv-02618-DMS-BGS Document 12 Filed 11/28/12 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

In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court "shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation.

The newly filed petition is dismissed because it merely repeats previously litigated and decided

claims. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1104, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). Alternatively, it is

dismissed for the reasons stated in the order filed February 22, 2012 dismissing the previously filed

petition. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation

is ADOPTED. The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Certificate of appealability

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:11-cv-02618-DMS-BGS Document 12 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of 2