Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00760/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00760-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Earl Beck
Petitioner
Mike Evans
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA EARL BECK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MIKE EVANS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00760 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 24, 2006, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. See Beck v. Evans, Case No. 1:06-CV-00074 AWI LJO HC. On June 15, 2006, Petitioner

filed the instant second federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

The Court has reviewed both of the pending federal petitions listed above and finds that the

petitions to be duplicative; both petitions challenge the same 2003 conviction and sentence in the

Stanislaus County Superior Court. In light of the duplicative nature of the petitions, the Court finds

that the instant action should be dismissed.

Case 1:06-cv-00760-AWI -SMS Document 3 Filed 06/26/06 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED as duplicative. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the

court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The

parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00760-AWI -SMS Document 3 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2