Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00511-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

 Petititioner’s initial pleading was filed on the form for a civil rights action pursuant to 42 1

U.S.C. § 1983 and denominated Marty v. FERC, et al. For the reasons set forth in this order, the court

construes the action as one for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Henceforth the action

shall be denominated Marty v. McPartland in accordance with the habeas corpus petition filed by

petition on July 10, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIE MARTY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0511 FCD PAN P

vs.

MICHAEL B. McPARTLAND, ORDER AND 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action on March 10,

2006, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was incomplete in that the

certificate portion of the application was not signed by a prison official and it was lacking a prison

trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. 

On April 11, 2006, this court issued an order directing petitioner to submit within thirty days from

the date of the order a completed affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner failed to do so, and on June 1, 2006, this court issued findings and recommendations,

Case 2:06-cv-00511-FCD-PAN Document 10 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 2

500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

recommending that this action be dismissed. Petitioner has filed neither objections to the findings

and recommendations nor an in forma pauperis application, although he did, on July 5, 2006, file a

request for confirmation that the court received his objections to the findings and recommendations. 

On July 10, 2006, petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, containing claims virtually identical to those contained in his complaint. Petitioner also filed

on July 10, 2006, a letter asking the court to grant his two petitions. The court’s own records reveal

that petitioner has previously filed two petitions challenging the conviction at issue in the instant

petition (Nos. CIV S-99-0059 FCD DAD P; CIV S-99-1572 FCD DAD P). The latter petition was

dismissed as duplicative of the former, which in turn was dismissed for failure to exhaust state

remedies. In addition, plaintiff recently filed another petition attacking the same conviction which

contains allegations virtually identical to those in the petition filed in this action (No. CIV S-06-0512

FCD DAD P). 

2

All of petitioner’s claims against the conviction at issue herein must be pursued, if at

all, in one action. See Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. It appears plaintiff intends to seek federal

habeas corpus relief, and that he has filed petitions in two separate actions to do so. As an identical

petition has been filed in Case No. CIV S-06-0512 FCD DAD P, and as the latter action is already

assigned to the district judge and magistrate judge who considered the prior petitions, see Local Rule

81-190, the court will recommend dismissal of this action as duplicative. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and

recommendations filed June 1, 2006 are vacated; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to

this 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

Case 2:06-cv-00511-FCD-PAN Document 10 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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: July 27, 2006.

14

mart0511.123

Case 2:06-cv-00511-FCD-PAN Document 10 Filed 07/28/06 Page 3 of 3