Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02381/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02381-0/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

 Petitioner did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1

§ 1915, or pay the filing fee.

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

803 F.2d 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

GLYNNON EVINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2381 LKK GGH P

vs.

A.P. KANE, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner pro se who has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This petition was filed with the court on November 28, 1

2005. The court’s records reveal that on November 3, 2005, petitioner filed a petition containing

virtually identical allegations against the same respondents, Case No. Civ. S-05-2224 DFL DAD

P ). In fact, Case No. Civ.-S-05-2224 DFL DAD P appears to be an exact duplicate of the 2

instant case. Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that

the petition be dismissed.

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-02381-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 01/12/06 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

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

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: 1/12/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/mp

evin2381.23

Case 2:05-cv-02381-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2