Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00324/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00324-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD G. STINSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Respondents. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-0324 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On January 18, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges

a 2006 decision by the California Board of Prison Hearings (“BPH”) to revoke his parole.

Petitioner has written a letter to the court indicating that the instant petition, and a

petition filed by petitioner one day earlier, on January 17, 2007, in an earlier-filed habeas

action, Stinson v. Board of Prison Terms, et al., No. C 07-0282 MMC (PR), are “one and the

same.” A review of the petitions filed in the two actions indicates they are identical. A

complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims is frivolous and may be

dismissed sua sponte. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995);

Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

(providing second or successive petition may not be filed in district court unless petitioner

first obtains from United States Court of Appeals order authorizing such petition). As the

instant petition is identical to petitioner’s earlier-filed petition, the instant action is hereby

Case 3:07-cv-00324-MMC Document 6 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISMISSED as duplicative. 

In light of the dismissal, no fee is due. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00324-MMC Document 6 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 2