Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01838/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01838-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Kernan
Respondent
Christopher Woods
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 

CHRISTOPHER WOODS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-1838 MCE GGH 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. The court has not ruled on the application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

 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 March 17, 2008, and was denied on the merits on March 30, 2009. See 

Woods v. Martel, No. 2:08-cv-0585 JKS. 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 re-filing upon obtaining 

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

Case 2:16-cv-01838-MCE-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/01/16 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS 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. 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: August 31, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Wood1838.success 

Case 2:16-cv-01838-MCE-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2