Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00939/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00939-1/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

ERNEST HARRIS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0939 LKK KJM P

vs.

ROBERT A. HOREL,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On October 9, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00939-LKK-CKD Document 7 Filed 04/07/08 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

 In his objections, petitioner asserts that this action should not be dismissed as a “second 1

or successive” petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 because petitioner’s first habeas petition

challenging the conviction at issue in this action had not yet been denied when petitioner filed

this action. The court disagrees as there is nothing in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 indicating a petition

cannot be “second or successive” for purposes of that statute unless the first petition had been

adjudicated before filing of the second. See Ochoa v. Sirmons, 485 F.3d 538, 540-41 (10th Cir.

200) (second petition filed before appeal was complete with respect to the first was “second or

successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244). 

2

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 9, 2007, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: April 4, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00939-LKK-CKD Document 7 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 2