Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darryl Keith Alexander
Petitioner
Eric Arnold
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.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0060 GEB 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 is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

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 

filed in 2:14-cv-0644 JKS P was denied on the merits on September 15, 2015 and is currently on 

appeal at the Ninth Circuit. Before petitioner can proceed with the instant successive petition, he 

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 

/////

Case 2:16-cv-00060-GEB-CKD Document 7 Filed 02/01/16 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

prejudice to its refiling upon petitioner obtaining the required authorization from the Ninth 

Circuit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis is granted; and

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: February 1, 2016

1

alex0060.suc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00060-GEB-CKD Document 7 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2