Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00974/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00974-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Respondent
Roderick Washington
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00974 LJO NEW (DLB) 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 March 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

This petition was assigned case number “1:07-CV-00554 LJO DLB HC.” 

On July 3, 2007, Petitioner filed another federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. This petition was assigned case number “1:07-CV-00974 LJO NEW (DLB) HC.” 

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

second petition is duplicative of the first. The second petition challenges the same conviction and

sentence out of Kings County. In light of the duplicative nature of the petitions, the Court finds that

the instant action should be dismissed.

Case 1:07-cv-00974-LJO-GSA Document 5 Filed 07/23/07 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 Lawrence J. O’Neill,

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: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00974-LJO-GSA Document 5 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2