Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00898-0/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

KELVIN ANDERSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0898 DFL GGH P

vs.

M.C. KRAMER, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2000 conviction for genital

penetration by a foreign object and forcible sodomy.

Court records indicate that petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition in

this court challenging his 2000 conviction, CIV S-03-2236 WBS GGH P. On March 24, 2005,

this petition was denied on the merits.

The instant petition is a second or successive petition to CIV S-03-2236 WBS

GGH P. Before a second or successive petition may be brought, petitioner must move in the

Court of Appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.

S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Because petitioner has not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals to proceed with this action, the court recommends that this action be dismissed for

Case 2:06-cv-00898-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 05/17/06 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

2

lack of jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.

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: 5/17/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

and898.suc

Case 2:06-cv-00898-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2