Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02455/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02455-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BROWNLEE,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-2455 DFL JFM P 

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS & 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 and a motion for leave 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 will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a

writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. The

previous application was filed on June 3, 1993, and was denied on the merits on November 18,

1994. Before petitioner can proceed with the instant application he must move in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, petitioner's application must be

Case 2:05-cv-02455-DFL -JFM Document 9 Filed 01/18/06 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

dismissed without prejudice to its refiling upon obtaining authorization from the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

December 5, 2005 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

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, 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 17, 2006.

001

brow2455.suc

Case 2:05-cv-02455-DFL -JFM Document 9 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2