Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00251-5/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

HERMAN TERRELL, No. CIV S-07-0251-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondents’ motion to

dismiss (Doc. 13), filed on May 18, 2007. Despite having been granted an extension of time to

do so, petitioner has not filed an opposition. 

In their motion, respondents argue that this case is a successive petition and

should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Specifically, respondents contend that

this petition raises the same claims as raised in another case currently pending before this court at

case no. CIV-S-06-2937-FCD-GGH. While the court agrees with respondents that the instant

petition is duplicative of the other pending case, the court does not agree that the instant petition

is successive. A petition can only be successive of a prior petition which has been decided on the

Case 2:07-cv-00251-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 08/17/07 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

2

merits. Because the prior case is still pending, it is not successive. However, because the instant

case is duplicative, the court will recommend granting respondents’ motion to dismiss on this

ground.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) be granted; and

2. This petition be dismissed as duplicative of case no. CIV-S-06-2937-FCDGGH.

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 16, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00251-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 2