Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01887/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01887-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Hudson
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO HUDSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1887 GGH P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, et al., ORDER and

Respondents. 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.

In considering whether to dismiss an action as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d), the

court has especially broad discretion. Conway v. Fugge, 439 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1971). The Ninth

Circuit has held that an action is frivolous if it lacks arguable substance in law and fact. Franklin v.

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court's determination of whether a complaint

or claim is frivolous is based on “‘an assessment of the substance of the claim presented, i.e., is there

a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully

pleaded.’” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227 (citations omitted).

Petitioner's petition was transferred to this court from the Fresno Division of the

Eastern District of California on August 14, 2008. The court's own records reveal that on June 10,

2008, the Fresno Division transferred another action to this court, CIV S-08-1302 MCE GGH P,

Case 2:08-cv-01887-LKK -GGH Document 11 Filed 09/11/08 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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 1

500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

 The original petition in CIV S-08-1302 was filed June 6, 2008, in the Fresno Division, whereas 2

the original petition in the instant action was filed June 5, 2008, in the Fresno Division. Although CIV

S-08-1302 was technically filed earlier than the instant action, the court will dismiss the instant action

as duplicative because CIV S-08-1302 was transferred first to this court and has a pending motion to

dismiss. 

2

containing virtually identical allegations against the same respondents. Due to the duplicative 1

nature of the present action, the court finds it frivolous and, therefore, recommends that the petition

be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign a district judge to this case.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to

this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 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: 09/11/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

hudson.1887

Case 2:08-cv-01887-LKK -GGH Document 11 Filed 09/11/08 Page 2 of 2