Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02381/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02381-1/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

 Petitioner does not object per se to the dismissal of this action nor contend that it is not

duplicative. His apparent concern is that he did not file objections to a recommendation of

dismissal for failure to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or to pay the filing fee in Case No.

CIV-S-05-2224 DFL DAD P because his records/receipts indicated that the fee had been paid

and he believed court records would reflect his payment. The docket in Case No. CIV-S-05-

2224 DFL DAD P reflects, as of Feb. 9, 2006, that petitioner paid the filing fee but that judgment

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLYNNON EVINS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2381 LKK GGH P

vs.

A.P. KANE, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 12, 2006, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.1 

Case 2:05-cv-02381-LKK -GGH Document 6 Filed 04/20/06 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

was entered, pursuant to an order filed on March 7, 2006; however, pursuant to a subsequent

order, filed on April 10, 2006, Case No. CIV S-05-2224 DFL DAD P, the order dismissing the

action was found to have been issued in error, and the original case was reopened and is

proceeding, facts of which this court takes judicial notice. See Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370,

1377 (9th Cir. 1994); MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United

States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (A court may take judicial notice of court

records).

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: April 19, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/evin2381.804

Case 2:05-cv-02381-LKK -GGH Document 6 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2