Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00919/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00919-0/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

 On February 27, 2015, Creighton consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

2

 See id. (Docket No. 4.)

Case No. C 15-0919 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT W. CREIGHTON,

Petitioner,

 v.

TIM PEREZ, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 15-0919 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

 Robert W. Creighton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2012 conviction and sentence.1 Creighton has paid

the filing fee. Creighton has filed another writ of habeas corpus in Creighton v. Perez, No. 15-

0943 HRL (N.D. Cal. filed March 2, 2015), in which he challenges the same 2012 conviction

and sentence. A review of the petition filed in both cases shows that Creighton has filed the

same petition raising the same claim in each case. An order to show case has already issued in

Creighton v. Perez, No. 15-0943 HRL.2

 

Case 5:15-cv-00919-PSG Document 3 Filed 05/22/15 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

27

28

3

 See Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

4

 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Case No. C 15-0919 PSG (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 2

For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is DISMISSED as duplicative. All claims

relating to Creighton’s 2012 conviction and sentence must be brought and litigated in Creighton

v. Perez, No. 15-0943 HRL. 

Further, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.3

 For the reasons stated above,

Creighton has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling.”4

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge

5/22/2015

Case 5:15-cv-00919-PSG Document 3 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 2