Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00465/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00465-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSIE L. MATTHEWS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MRS. CAMPBELL, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00465-OWW-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS AS DUPLICATIVE

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 10, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition in the Sacramento Division of

this Court. (Doc. 1). On April 21, 2006, the matter was transferred to the Fresno Division of this

Court. (Doc. 5). 

On July 19, 2006, apparently seeking amend the instant petition by adding a supplemental

legal discussion, Petitioner filed a second petition, to which the Clerk of the Court assigned the

separate case number 1:06-cv-00929-AWI-TAG. On November 21, 2007, the Court ordered

Respondent to file a response to case number 1:06-cv-00929-AWI-TAG by February 26, 2008. 

(Doc. 7). 

The Court has examined the petitions in both cases and finds them to be identical with the

exception of the aforementioned supplemental legal discussion attached to the petition in case

number 1:06-cv-00929-AWI-TAG. In light of the duplicative nature of the petitions, the Court

finds that one of the petitions must be dismissed. Because the Court has already ordered a

Case 1:06-cv-00465-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 12/13/07 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

2

response in case number 1:06-cv-00929-AWI-TAG, and because that case contains the

supplemental argument Petitioner requested the Court to consider, the Court recommends that

the instant case be dismissed as duplicative, even though it is the earlier-filed case. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant petition be dismissed as

duplicative of case number 1:06-cv-00929-AWI-TAG. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, 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 twenty (20) days 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 Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within fifteen (15) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The District Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00465-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2