Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00339/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvis Garrison
Petitioner
Raul Lopez
Respondent

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

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 1

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126

(1981). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIS GARRISON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 10-339 GGH P

vs.

RAUL LOPEZ, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Petitioner challenges his 2000 conviction from Sacramento County for three

counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery and two counts of being a felon in possession

of a firearm. 

Court records indicate that petitioner previously filed a petition in this court

challenging the same conviction in Garrison v. Reynolds, CIV S-02-1544 DFL JFM P. On 1

March 23, 2005, 02-1544 DFL JFM P was denied on the merits. 

Case 2:10-cv-00339-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 02/25/10 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

Before a second or successive application for writ of habeas corpus may be filed

in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order

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

has not demonstrated that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has authorized him to proceed with

this successive or second application. For that reason, this action must be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign

a district judge to this action;

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

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: February 25, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

gar339.dis

Case 2:10-cv-00339-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2