Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00613/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00613-2/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

JOHN FREDERICK HARDNEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-06-0613 DFL KJM P 

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges prison disciplinary proceedings

occurring in March and April of 2004. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss. A review of

court records indicates that petitioner is proceeding here on the same petition as the one filed in

case number CIV-S-05-1451 LKK EFB. Specifically, except for the date above the signature

line, petitioner’s “amended petition” filed on January 23, 2006 in CIV-S-05-1451 LKK EFB is

the same as the petition filed in this case on March 23, 2006. Because this action is duplicative

of CIV-S-05-1451 LKK EFB, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00613-JKS-KJM Document 14 Filed 05/01/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ January 30, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: April 30, 2007.

1

hard0613.157

Case 2:06-cv-00613-JKS-KJM Document 14 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 2