Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00587/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00587-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mervin Sandy Dunford
Plaintiff
M. Veal
Defendant

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

MERVIN SANDY DUNFORD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-0587 LEW GGH P

vs.

M. VEAL, ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges his 1992 conviction for attempted murder and forcible lewd

conduct on a child under the age of fourteen. Court records indicate that petitioner has

previously filed a petition for relief challenging the same conviction, CIV S-97-1030 FCD JFM

P. On May 24, 1999, 97-1030 was denied on the merits. 

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00587-JAM-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/16/08 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

2

If this is a second or successive petition, petitioner must move in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals for an order authorizing this court to consider the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 

According to the rule set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, a petition will not be deemed a “second or

successive” petition for purposes of Section 2244 where the prior petition “was not adjudicated

on the merits.” See Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1002 n. 1 (9 Cir. 2000), citing Slack v. th

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-486 (2000). Because the prior action was denied on the merits,

the instant petition is “second or successive.”

Accordingly, the court recommends that this action be dismissed because

petitioner has not obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit to proceed with this second or

successive motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis is granted;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 04/16/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

dun587.dis

Case 2:08-cv-00587-JAM-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2