Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02618/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02618-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMIE ACOSTA,, Civil No. 11cv2618 DMS (BGS)

Petitioner,

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

F. GONZALEZ, Warden, et al.,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Respondent notes that Petitioner previously

filed a Petition in this Court regarding the same claims at issue in the present Petition. (Doc. No.

4.) Respondent asked the Court to construe this Petition as another motion to amend in Case

Number 11-cv-1313-DMS (BGS). (Id.) Respondent also requests that the Court deny the

motion to amend as futile. (Id.) 

On February 22, 2012, however, Judge Sabraw adopted this Court’s report and

recommendation in 11-cv-1313-DMS and dismissed the petition, as well as denied the motion

to amend without further leave to amend. (See Acosta v. F. Gonzalez, 11cv1313-DMS

(BGS)[Doc. No. 23].) Accordingly, on February 22, 2012, Petitioner’s case, 11-cv-1313-DMS,

was closed. (Id. at Doc. No. 24.) Thus, it is not appropriate to treat the instant Petition as 

-1- 12cv1714

Case 3:11-cv-02618-DMS-BGS Document 10 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

motion to amend in Case Number 11-cv-1313-DMS. Rather, the Court finds it appropriate to

dismiss the Petition as duplicative.

DUPLICATIVE PETITION

In his Petition, Acosta challenges his SanDiego CountySuperior Court conviction in case

number SCD133742 alleging (1) the restitution fine portion of his sentence was imposed in

violation of the “constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws,” and (2) his “procedural

bar” is not independent of federal law and inadequate under California law.” (Pet. 6-7.) 

Petitioner already had a petition for habeas corpus pending before this Court in which he

challenges the same San Diego Superior Court conviction in case number SCD133742 and raises

the same claims. (See Acosta v. F. Gonzalez, 11cv1313-DMS (BGS)[Doc. No. 1].) In that

case, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss that was granted on February 22, 2012. The Court

may dismiss a duplicative petition as frivolous if it “merely repeats pending or previously

litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations

omitted). Because the current Petition merely repeats claims already raised in Case Number

11cv1313-DMS (BGS), the Petition is dismissed as duplicative.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge Dana M.

Sabraw under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California. For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that the Petition be DISMISSED in its entirety on grounds that it is duplicative. IT IS FURTHER

RECOMMENDED the Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report and

Recommendation; (2) entering an order DISMISSING the petition without leave to amend; and (3) the

court DECLINE to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED no later than September 14, 2012, any party to this action may

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any Reply to the Objections shall be filed with the Court and

served on all parties no later than October 5, 2012. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

-2- 12cv1714

Case 3:11-cv-02618-DMS-BGS Document 10 Filed 08/23/12 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s Order. 

See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2012

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

-3- 12cv1714

Case 3:11-cv-02618-DMS-BGS Document 10 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 3