Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01254/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01254-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darryl Keith Alexander
Petitioner
G. Swarthout
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL KEITH ALEXANDER,

Petitioner,

v.

G. SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1254 CKD 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 request to proceed in forma pauperis reveals 

that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.

Court 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 

////

////

Case 2:16-cv-01254-TLN-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/29/16 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

filed in 2:14-cv-0644 JKS P was denied on the merits on September 15, 2015. Before petitioner

can proceed with the instant successive petition,1he must move in the Ninth Circuit for an order 

authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Therefore, 

petitioner’s habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling upon petitioner 

obtaining the required authorization from the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted; and

2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case.

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

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. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 

case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 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: June 28, 2016

1

alex0060.sxs(2)

 

1

 The instant petition is actually petitioner’s second successive petition. See 2:16-cv-0060 GEB 

CKD P. 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01254-TLN-CKD Document 10 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2