Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00685/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00685-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gordon Andrew Douglas
Petitioner
Greg Lewis
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 

GORDON ANDREW DOUGLAS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GREG LEWIS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:13-cv-685-KJM-JFM (HC) 

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. § 1915.1 

 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 April 28, 1997, and was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on 

April 24, 2012. See 2:97-cv-00775-KJM-JFM; Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 

2008). 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 

 

1

 Petitioner did not file a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because 

petitioner does not have authority to proceed with his application, the court will not address the 

request. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 7 Filed 08/21/13 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

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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice.2 

 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 20, 2013. 

doug0685.success 

 

2

 The court recognizes that petitioner, the only party in this action, consented to proceed before a 

magistrate judge. However, this matter was referred to a district judge on the grounds that she 

considered petitioner’s prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-KJM-EFB Document 7 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 2