Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00947-0/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

 By order filed May 13, 2005, this action was transferred to this court from the United States 1

District Court for the Central District of California.

A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 2

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH MILLS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0947 MCE PAN P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER AND 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.1

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

The instant action challenges a conviction sustained in 2001 in Solano County

Superior Court case No. VCR147775. Court records show that petitioner currently has a habeas

corpus challenge to that conviction pending in this court. (No. CIV S-03-0341 GEB PAN P.) All

2

Case 2:05-cv-00947-MCE -PAN Document 5 Filed 03/17/06 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

grounds for relief available to petitioner to challenge the 2001 Solano County Superior Court

conviction must be raised, if at all, in that action. See Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to

this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served

with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” 

Petitioner is 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).

DATED: March 16, 2006. 

12

mill0947.156

Case 2:05-cv-00947-MCE -PAN Document 5 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2