Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01427/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01427-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

PAUL JENNINGS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1427 LKK KJM P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California civil detainee proceeding pro se. He challenges, by way

of application for writ of habeas corpus, a 2005 civil commitment order issued by the Superior

Court of Shasta County. A review of court records indicates that petitioner is challenging the

same finding in CIV-S-07-0708 FCD GGH P. Therefore this matter should be dismissed as

duplicative. If petitioner wishes to assert grounds for relief other than those currently before the

court in CIV-S-07-0708 FCD GGH P, petitioner should file a motion for leave to amend in that

case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for

a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.

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

Case 2:07-cv-01427-LKK -KJM Document 5 Filed 10/09/07 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

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: October 9, 2007. 

1

jenn1427.frs

Case 2:07-cv-01427-LKK -KJM Document 5 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2