Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02478/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02478-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE W. LYMUEL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2478 LKK GGH P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges his 1995 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Court

records indicate that petitioner has previously filed a petition for relief challenging the same

conviction, CIV S-99-1525 LKK JFM P. On April 5, 2000, 99-1525 was dismissed as barred by

the statute of limitations.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02478-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 12/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

If this is a second or successive petition, petitioner must move in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals for an order authorizing this court to consider the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 

According to the rule set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, a petition will not be deemed a “second or

successive” petition for purposes of Section 2244 where the prior petition “was not adjudicated

on the merits.” See Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1002 n. 1 (9 Cir. 2000), citing Slack v. th

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-486 (2000). The law is clear that a dismissal based on the statute

of limitations is an adjudication on the merits of the claim. See Ellingson v. Burlington Northern

Inc., 653 F.2d 1327, 1330 n. 3 (9 Cir. 1981)(“[a] judgment based on the statute of limitations is th

‘on the merits’”); see also Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, 514 U.S. 211, 228 (1995)(“The rules of

finality, both statutory and judge made, treat a dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds the

same way they treat a dismissal for failure to state a claim, for failure to prove substantive

grounds the same way they treat a dismissal for failure to state a claim, for failure to prove

substantive liability, or for failure to prosecute: as a judgment on the merits.”) Thus, because

petitioner’s prior petition was adjudicated on the merits, the instant petition is a “second or

successive motion.” 

Accordingly, the court recommends that this action be dismissed because petition

has not obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit to proceed with this second or successive

motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis is granted;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 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

Case 2:06-cv-02478-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 12/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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 waives the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 12/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

lym2478.dis

Case 2:06-cv-02478-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 12/26/06 Page 3 of 3