Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01168/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01168-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO CANODY, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1168 FCD KJM P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his 1999 Sacramento Superior Court

conviction for robbery with the use of a weapon and the resulting “three strikes”-based sentence

of forty-one-years-to-life. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the case is

duplicative of the action already pending in Canody v. Director, Department Of Corrections, 

Civ. No. S-03-2296 GEB JFM P, and that it was not filed within the AEDPA statute of

limitations. 

The instant petition contains four challenges to petitioner’s conviction: (1) denial

of the right to a speedy trial under California Penal Code section 1382; (2) denial of the right to a

line-up before the preliminary hearing; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, based on counsel’s 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01168-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 08/08/05 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

failure to assert petitioner’s right to a speedy trial or adequately argue the motion for a line-up;

and (4) prosecutorial misconduct based on the prosecutor’s use of petitioner’s prior convictions

to ask petitioner to admit he was a thief.

In the previously filed action, which is still pending, petitioner challenges the

same Sacramento Superior Court conviction on the same grounds as in the instant case. See Am.

Pet., Canody v. Director, Department of Corrections, Civ. No. S-03-2296 GEB JFM P (docket

no. 5). 

In light of the prior action, the instant petition is duplicative and must be

dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (f). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to

dismiss be granted. 

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 twenty

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: August 5, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

cano1168.157

Case 2:04-cv-01168-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2