Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03229/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03229-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathleen Dickinson
Respondent
Hung Duong Nguon
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG DUONG NGUON

Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-3229 JFM (HC)

vs.

KATHLEEN DICKINSON

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

corpus on November 19, 2009 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed

in forma pauperis. On November 24, 2009, petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas

corpus, together with a second request to proceed in forma pauperis. This second petition was

docketed as an amended petition. 

On January 29, 2010, the petitioner filed a motion for correction of error. In his

motion, petitioner claims that his second petition is unrelated to his first and that it should not

have been filed as an amended petition, but instead assigned a new case number. 

On February 5, 2010, respondent filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s amended

petition.

The November 19, 2009 petition challenges petitioner’s “R” designation, a

Case 2:09-cv-03229-KJM-JFM Document 16 Filed 02/17/10 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

designation allegedly used to label individuals committed for specified sex offenses. Petitioner

claims that he (1) did not commit a sex offense; (2) was given this designation in retaliation for

various appeals filed; (3) was inappropriately housed in general population with this designation;

and (4) has been sexually abused as a result of the “R” designation.

The November 24, 2009 petition challenges the accuracy of information in

petitioner’s prison file that is used during his parole hearings, including incorrect information

regarding his reading skill and a counselor’s inaccurate description of petitioner’s crime. 

Petitioner makes no mention of an “R” designation. 

Examination of the two petitions reveals that they are, in fact, unrelated to each

other. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 29, 2010 motion for correction of error is granted; and

2. The Clerk of the Court shall designate the following with a new case number

and reassign the case accordingly: petitioner’s November 24, 2009 petition for writ of habeas

corpus; petitioner’s November 24, 2009 motion for in forma pauperis; and respondent’s February

5, 2010 motion to dismiss. 

DATED: February 16, 2010.

/014.nguo3229.mot

Case 2:09-cv-03229-KJM-JFM Document 16 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2