Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02929/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02929-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Price
Respondent
Nyles Lawayne Watson
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 

NYLES LAWAYNE WATSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J. PRICE, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2929 MCE GGH P 

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. The previous 

application was filed on May 29, 2003, and was denied on the merits on August 21, 2008. See 

Watson v. Carey, No. 3:03-cv-1150 LKK EFB. The current petition represents a successive 

challenge to the same 1996 conviction at issue in petitioner’s prior petition. 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 refiling 

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

 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 2:14-cv-02929-MCE-GGH Document 7 Filed 01/26/15 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

 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 26, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

GGH:076/Wats2929.succ 

Case 2:14-cv-02929-MCE-GGH Document 7 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2