Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00254-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. A. Lamarque
Respondent
Armando Ortiz
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

ARMANDO ORTIZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A. A. LAMARQUE, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0254 AWI LJO P

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 February 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

Court. This petition was assigned case number “CV F 05 0213 OWW DLB HC.” 

On February 23, 2005, Petitioner filed a second federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court. This petition was assigned case number “CV F 05 0245 AWI LJO P.” 

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

petitions are identical. In light of the duplicative nature of the petitions, the Court finds that the

instant action should be dismissed.

Case 1:05-cv-00254-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 04/21/05 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: April 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00254-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 2