Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01071/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01071-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard A. Bridgewater
Petitioner
McDowell
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD A. BRIDGEWATER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

McDOWELL, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-1071 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; plaintiff did not request permission 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 transferred to this court on May 6, 20021

, and was denied on the merits on 

December 24, 2009. See Bridgewater v. Roe, Civ.S. 2:02-0971 LKK KJM. 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 refiling upon obtaining authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

 

1

 The paper case file is archived and therefore the filed date of the petition is unknown. 

Case 2:16-cv-01071-JAM-GGH Document 3 Filed 05/26/16 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

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to 

this case. 

 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: May 25, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:AM/kly 

brid1071.succ 

Case 2:16-cv-01071-JAM-GGH Document 3 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 2