Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00108-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keli Mitchell
Respondent
Gregory A. Moss
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

GREGORY A. MOSS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KELI MITCHELL, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0108 GGH 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. 

 The court’s records reveal that petitioner has previously filed an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence challenged in this case. Moss v. California 

Dept. of Corrections, 2:10-cv-2128 GEB CHS P. The previous application was filed on April 5, 

2010, and was denied on the merits on June 14, 2012. Before petitioner can proceed with the 

instant application, he must move in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for 

an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). 

Therefore, petitioner’s application must be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing upon 

obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the court randomly assign a 

United States District Judge to this action. 

Case 2:15-cv-00108-TLN-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/23/15 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 

2

 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

 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 fourteen 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: January 22, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Moss0108.succ 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00108-TLN-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 2