Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02222-2/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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 1

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

JASON YONAI,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2222 LKK JFM P

vs.

CSP-SAC SUPERINTENDENT

MR. WALKER, et al., 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.

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). 

By this action, filed October 18, 2007, petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary

conviction based on a rules violation report dated June 3, 2003, charging him with possession of an

inmate manufactured weapon. Court records reveal that on October 16, 2007, petitioner filed

another habeas corpus action petition challenging the same prison disciplinary conviction. (No. Civ.

S-07-2197 GEB EFB P). All challenges to that prison disciplinary conviction must be raised in one 1

Case 2:07-cv-02222-LKK -JFM Document 8 Filed 01/25/08 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

 In both actions, petitioner claims that his conviction was based on “false evidence.” The 2

allegations in the two actions are virtually identical, except that the instant action also contains general

contentions that petitioner’s “due process and Miranda rights were violated and I did not receive fair

Rules Violation Report hearings.” Petition, filed October 18, 2007, at 5.

2

action. See Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner should raise all challenges to his prison 2

disciplinary conviction based on the June 3, 2003 rules violation report in the earlier filed action, No.

CIV S-07-2197 GEB EFB P, cf. Local Rule 81-190(d), and this action should be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

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

application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

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

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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: January 24, 2008.

12

yona2222.123

Case 2:07-cv-02222-LKK -JFM Document 8 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2