Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01597/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01597-0/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUVENAL DEANDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01597 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On October 26, 2006, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. This petition was assigned case number “1:06-CV-1522 AWI DLB HC.” 

On November 8, 2006, Petitioner filed a second federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court. This petition was assigned case number “1:06-CV-1597 AWI SMS HC.” 

The Court has reviewed both of the pending federal petitions listed above and finds that the

petitions are identical. In light of the duplicative nature of the petitions, the Court finds that the

instant action should be dismissed.

Case 1:06-cv-01597-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as duplicative. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a copy, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to

the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01597-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2