Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00767/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00767-0/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

Although the Letter of Clarification Re Other Actions Not Filed by Petitioner is not attached

to the cover letter in this case, it seems to have been separated and filed in the other petition that he

filed in 08cv1007-H(CAB) as docket entry no. 35.

- 1 - 10cv767-MMA(AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIER ESPINOZA RODRIGUEZ,,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv767-MMA (AJB)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 8.]

vs.

JOHN C. MARSHALL, Warden,

Defendant.

Petitioner Javier Espinoza Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Central District of California. An order

transferring the case to the Southern District of California was filed on May 30, 2008; however, the

case was not filed in this Court until April 12, 2010. On June 22, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to

dismiss arguing that the petition is moot. On July 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a cover letter regarding

a Letter of Clarification Re Other Actions Not Filed by Petitioner that he states he attached.1

 It

appears that Petitioner does not contest the motion to dismiss. 

Discussion

On April 8, 2008, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Central District

of California under case no. 08cv2310-JVS(SS). The petition was ordered transferred to the Southern

Case 3:10-cv-00767-MMA-AJB Document 12 Filed 08/10/10 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

27

28

- 2 - 10cv767-MMA(AJB)

District of California and designated as case no. 08cv1007-H(CAB) on June 3, 2008. In that case, on

April 20, 2010, the district judge denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits and denied

a certificate of appealability. On May 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. 

Meanwhile, the same order of transfer filed in case no. 08cv1007-H(CAB) appears to have

been electronically sent again to this Court on April 13, 2010. Therefore, the instant case was opened

with the same petition that was filed in this court in case no. 08cv1007-H(CAB) and decided on the

merits. 

Respondent argues that the petition is moot because the claims have already been denied in

this Court. In response, Petitioner writes “This Letter should provide clarity re Case No.s [CV-08-

2310 JVS (SS), & 10cv767 MMA(AJB)]: These two cases were never filed by this Petitioner, or said

[?]-Documents were meant for filing of numerous petitions. The only applicable Case No. [08cv1007-

H(CAB)] regarding his Petition is now pending on appeal.” (08cv1007-H(CAB), Doc. No. 35.) 

It appears that the instant petition, already decided on the merits, was accidentally filed again

in this Court. Petitioner does not object and even states that this petition was not filed by him and the

only relevant petition is 08cv1007-H(CAB) which is now on appeal. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the

petition for writ of habeas be DENIED and DISMISSED as MOOT.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion to

dismiss be GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED

as MOOT. This report and recommendation is submitted by the undersigned Magistrate Judge to

the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United

States Code, section 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than September 8, 2010, any party to this action may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later than September 22, 2010. The parties are advised that failure to

Case 3:10-cv-00767-MMA-AJB Document 12 Filed 08/10/10 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

27

28

- 3 - 10cv767-MMA(AJB)

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of

the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2010

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-00767-MMA-AJB Document 12 Filed 08/10/10 Page 3 of 3