Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00494/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00494-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clopher Dotson
Petitioner
M.C. Kramer
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLOPHER DOTSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0494 GEB KJM P

vs.

M.C. KRAMER, Warden, ORDER AND

Respondent. 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

and two motions for the appointment of counsel. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit 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). The court must now determine if the action is frivolous or malicious.

In considering whether to dismiss an action as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d), the

court has especially broad discretion. Conway v. Fugge, 439 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1971). The Ninth

Circuit has held that an action is frivolous if it lacks arguable substance in law and fact. Franklin v.

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court's determination of whether a complaint

or claim is frivolous is based on “‘an assessment of the substance of the claim presented, i.e., is there 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00494-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 05/24/07 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

1

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803

F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

a factual and legal basis, of constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully

pleaded.’” Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227 (citations omitted).

The petition was filed with the court on March 14, 2007. The court's own records

reveal that on October 12, 2006, petitioner filed in this court a petition challenging the same Shasta

County Superior Court conviction. (No. Civ. S-06-2251 FCD KJM P).1

Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, the court finds it frivolous and,

therefore, will dismiss the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

2. Petitioner’s motions for the appointment of counsel are denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to

this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 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: May 24, 2007. 

2

dots0494.123

Case 2:07-cv-00494-GEB -KJM Document 11 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2