Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00020/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00020-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Davey
Respondent
Roberto Herrera
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 

ROBERTO HERRERA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

D. DAVEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-0020 JAM AC 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 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. ECF No. 5. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

 In the instant petition, petitioner challenges his September 9, 2010 conviction for battery 

on a non-inmate and possession of a homemade prison weapon. ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner was 

sentenced to an indeterminate term of twenty-five years to life. Id. He alleges that his due 

process rights and right to effective assistance of counsel were violated and that he has new 

evidence that was not heard by the court. Id. at 5, 7, 17-20. 

 The petition states (id. at 10), and the court’s records confirm, that petitioner has 

Case 2:16-cv-00020-JAM-AC Document 7 Filed 05/05/16 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

previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the conviction and sentence 

challenged in this case. The previous application was filed on February 22, 2012; challenges the 

conviction and sentence on the same grounds; and was pending at the time petitioner filed the 

instant petition. Id.; Herrera v. Gipson (Gipson), No. 2:12-cv-00508 DAD, ECF No. 1. The issue 

of new evidence has also been raised in Gipson. Gipson, ECF No. 119. Petitioner is represented 

by counsel in Gipson, and since the filing of the instant petition, the petition in Gipson was denied 

on the merits on April 1, 2016, and petitioner filed a notice of appeal on April 15, 2016. Gipson, 

ECF Nos. 125, 126. This court takes judicial notice of the record in that proceeding. United 

States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its 

own records in other cases.”). 

Because the instant petition is duplicative of the petition in Gipson, which is not yet final 

because petitioner is pursuing an appeal, the court will recommend the instant petition be 

dismissed as duplicative. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice 

because it is duplicative of Herrera v. Gipson, No. 2:12-cv-00508 DAD, in which petitioner is 

currently pursuing an appeal. 

 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-one 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: May 4, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00020-JAM-AC Document 7 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2