Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00209/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00209-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Ayard Lizzaraga
Respondent
Jose Luis Valdovinos
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

JOSE LUIS VALDOVINOS,

Petitioner,

v.

J. AYARD LIZZARAGA,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0209 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, who filed an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 19, 2016, pursuant to court order, 

petitioner filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The court’s own records reveal that on October 8, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus, which is presently pending.

1

 Valdovinos v. Lizarraga, Case No. 2:14-cv-2481 

MCE CMK (E.D. Cal.). Petitioner claims in the instant petition that his prior case was dismissed 

on January 20, 2016. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) However, on January 20, 2016, the assigned magistrate 

judge recommended that the action be dismissed, and the findings and recommendations have not 

yet been adopted by the district court.

////

 

1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. 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 2:16-cv-00209-KJN Document 9 Filed 03/01/16 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

Absent permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

petitioner must pursue all of his habeas claims in one action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). 

Therefore, petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis should be filed in his prior habeas 

action, Case No. 2:14-cv-2481 MCE CMK. Moreover, because the instant petition appears to add 

claims that were not included in the original or amended petition filed in Case No. 2:14-cv-2481 

MCE CMK, the instant petition should be filed in petitioner’s prior case as a second amended 

petition. Finally, because the instant petition contains claims raised in Case No. 2:14-cv-2481 

MCE CMK, the instant action is dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 2:14-cv-2481 MCE CMK.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed 

to:

1. File the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) in petitioner’s prior habeas 

action, Case No. 2:14-cv-2481 MCE CMK;

2. File the instant petition (ECF No. 1) in Case No. 2:14-cv-2481 MCE CMK as a second 

amended petition; and 

3. Dismiss the instant action. 

Dated: March 1, 2016

/vald0209.23

Case 2:16-cv-00209-KJN Document 9 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2