Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01319-0/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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 1

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW CHARLES MILOSLAVICH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1319 GEB GGH P

vs.

A. HEDGEPETH, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner's petition was filed with the court on July 5, 2007. The court's own records

reveal that on July 3, 2007, petitioner filed a petition containing virtually identical allegations against

the same respondents. (No. Civ. S-07-1315 FCD CMK P). Due to the duplicative nature of the 1

present action, the court recommends that it be dismissed. Rule 4, Federal Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01319-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 08/01/07 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

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

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: 8/1/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

mil1319.dup

Case 2:07-cv-01319-GEB-GGH Document 3 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2