Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00829/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00829-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED EUGENE MACHADO, No. CIV S-06-0829-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondents’ motion to

dismiss (Doc. 12). Petitioner has filed an opposition (Doc. 13). 

Respondents argue that the instant petition is successive and must be dismissed

because it was filed without prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b). In particular, respondent notes that petitioner has another case pending in this

court under case no. CIV S-05-0278-LKK-GGH which raises the same claims. This case is still

pending. While respondents are accurate in observing that petitioner has an identical petition

pending in this court, respondents are incorrect that this renders the instant petition successive. 

Under the very cases cited by respondents, the instant petition would only be considered

Case 2:06-cv-00829-JKS-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 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

successive if the first petition was resolved on the merits. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651

(1996). For example, where a petition is dismissed without prejudice in order to allow the

petition to exhaust state court remedies, the subsequent exhausted petition is not successive

under § 2244(b) because the first petition was not resolved on the merits. Because petitioner’s

first case is still pending, the instant petition cannot be successive. Therefore, respondent’s

motion to dismiss this petition as successive should be denied.

However, while the instant petition is not successive, it is certainly duplicative of

the prior petition in that it raises the same claims. For this reason, the instant petition should be

dismissed. Petitioner will have the opportunity to litigate his claims in the 2005 petition. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be denied; and

2. This petition be dismissed as duplicative of case no. CIV S-05-0278-LKKGGH.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: September 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00829-JKS-CMK Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2