Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01556-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANDRA KISHOR,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-1556 TLN DB P

ORDER AND 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 challenges his 1999 conviction in the Sacramento 

Superior Court. Presently before the court is petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis 

(ECF Nos. 4, 8), his motion to correct respondents’ names (ECF No. 9), and his petition for 

screening (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motions to 

proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion to correct respondents’ names as moot, and 

recommend that this action be dismissed. 

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).

////

Case 2:19-cv-01556-TLN-SCR Document 10 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 4
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

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

I. Legal Standards – Screening 

The court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek any form of 

relief, including habeas relief, from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a habeas petition or portion 

thereof if the prisoner raises claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious” or fail to state a basis 

on which habeas relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). This means the court must 

dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” Rule 4 Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these 

rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” Drawing on the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, when considering whether a petition presents a claim upon which habeas relief can be 

granted, the court must accept the allegations of the petition as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 

89, 94 (2007), and construe the petition in the light most favorable to the petitioner, see Scheuer 

v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than 

those drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but “[i]t is well-settled that 

‘[c]onclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant 

habeas relief.’” Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting James v. Borg, 24 

F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994)). See also Corjasso v. Ayers, 278 F.3d 874, 878 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Pro 

se habeas petitioners may not be held to the same technical standards as litigants represented by 

counsel.”); Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he petitioner is not entitled 

to the benefit of every conceivable doubt; the court is obligated to draw only reasonable factual 

inferences in the petitioner’s favor.”).

II. The Petition

Petitioner seeks to challenge his 1999 conviction and sentence in the Sacramento Superior 

Court. (Id.) Petitioner indicates that he pled guilty to robbery and attempted murder and was 

sentenced to seven years-to-life. (Id.) The court’s records reveal that petitioner previously filed 

Case 2:19-cv-01556-TLN-SCR Document 10 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 4
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

3

several petitions for writ of habeas corpus attacking the same conviction and sentence challenged 

in this case.1

Petitioner’s first habeas petition was filed in this court in June 2003 and denied on the 

merits in 2007. See Kishor v. Attorney General of CA, No. 03-cv-1219 LKK CMK P, 2007 WL 

2904237 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2007), findings and recommendations adopted, 2007 WL 4149327 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2007). The court notes that petitioner has previously challenged his 

underlying conviction on at least four other occasions: Case No. 2:06-cv-1592 GEB KJM; Case 

No. 2:08-cv-2028 FCD JFM; Case No. 2:10-cv-3171 LKK KJN; Case No. 2:11-cv-2148.

III. Analysis

A second or successive application for habeas relief may not be filed in the district court 

without prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); 

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-57 (1996). Prior authorization is a jurisdictional requisite. 

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 

2001) (once district court has recognized a petition as second or successive pursuant to § 2254(b), 

it lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits). “[A] ‘claim’ as used in § 2244(b) is an asserted 

federal basis for relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 

U.S. 524, 530 (2005). “A habeas petition is second or successive only if it raises claims that were 

or could have been adjudicated on the merits.” McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 

2009) (citing Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

Petitioner is presently challenging his 1999 conviction he challenged in Kishor v. 

Attorney General of CA, No. 2:03-cv-1219 LKK CMK (P) (E.D. Cal.), which was denied on the 

merits. Before petitioner can proceed with the instant petition, he must move in, and obtain from, 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, an order authorizing the district court to consider the merits of

his successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Absent such authorization, the instant 

petition must be dismissed without prejudice. Id.

 

1 A court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See MGIC 

Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 

118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 2:19-cv-01556-TLN-SCR Document 10 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

MOTION TO CORRECT RESPONDENTS’ NAMES

Petitioner has moved to have the respondent’s name changed from “unknown” to Warden 

Neuschmid, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and Governor

Newsom. (ECF No. 9.) However, because the court has determined that the petition should be 

dismissed as successive, the court will deny the motion as moot.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 4, 8) are granted; and

2. Petitioner’s motion to correct respondents’ names (ECF No. 9) is denied as moot.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice 

because it is premised on an unauthorized successive petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. The documents should be captions “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: January 21, 2020 

DB:12

DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Habeas/kish1556.scrn

Case 2:19-cv-01556-TLN-SCR Document 10 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 4